VE 

S3 




CC«C 



* cucr 
:. crc:: 



IL cc c 

c:ccc 

" cc c 



^=* L ~ 



Sec 

i 



?C333 
CCjC 

CCO 
CjCjO 

CCC < 

ccc ■ 

tor.--.. 

ccc 

ccc i 



lCCCjC. « 

:ccc * cc 

:ccc cc 

IvCC CC 

^c: ; cc 
"C cc 
?c«c cc 

«C€T cc 



:«cgc^ 



| LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, S 

# $ 



@ [FORCE COLLECTION.] jp 

J ^/. vE-^3 J 

2 ' 

! UNITED STATES OP AMERICA.! 



CC«C 

etc 



_ «c 
- €m 

*~ «c 

_ CO . 

^ ccc 

» ' c C 

cc 
cc 
enc <2 

*cc.:c ac 
cc 
c c 

[ -CCjC 

c c 

msmz c 

«X3exc r 

«C <3^CC 

cxidc: c 

■a83HEc« 

<~C«7" 



3js«cjc 

^c<^F 






<CC OCT 

pc<C 
S&C3CC 

.«3tc«cr 

<scc<jc 

CC:CCC « 

<£CccC7 c 

^<sccc<r c 












r"<neicc: 

_« <£<3lV' 

T c;cr< 

" €f<3C 

cccc 






<C1 " 



ci 



r^< 



Jb 



4W?. 3tf. c 3* t . 

/ot^/^ e^L4tt^\^ ^£faA..&) Pi^&^C /y,3^ t « 

^ } s^4xsr- / Ll^^U (r\j i:<A^--t^ e./f- &su~> i£&r (new t 

//./»^/ 4*Jtoe&t~ ^^V^, ^u. P<tA,<4Ut^ f dto^u/L 





f 


. . . i 


• // 


, . // 


, . , < y 








- ., ^1? 


, J 


.■,.>/* 



V.' 



@®siB®i3?®sriDmsr@E 



BETWEEN 



CAPTAIN JOSEPH L. KUHN, 



OE THE 



U. S. MARINES, 



AND THE 



OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT. 



WASHINGTON : 

PRINTED BV PETER EORCE, CORNER OF ELEVENTH STREET AND 

PENNSYLVANIA AVENFE. 

1830. 



TO THE PUBLIC. 



It is with unfeigned reluctance that the under- 
signed feels it incumbent upon him, to submit the 
following sheets to the judgment of the public. 
While determined to vindicate his character and 
conduct from aspersion, he has anxiously sought to 
avoid obtruding before the country the circumstan- 
ces upon which he rests his justification. Holding 
an important office, which imposed upon him the 
disbursement of large amounts of public moneys, 
it was a matter of paramount obligation to sustain 
his character against every allegation, which might 
affect his personal integrity. But while he was re- 
tained in office, he could not but feel that general 
and indirect charges did not require from him any 
special notice. He has therefore, not deemed it in- 
cumbent upon him, to reply to the insinuations 
with which he has been publicly assailed. When 
however, positive charges of delinquency are pre- 
ferred by the accounting officers of the government ; 
and when an investigation into the truth of these 
charges is followed up by a dismission from office, 
the aspect of the case is changed, and silence might 
fairly be construed into an admission of guilt. Pos- 
sessing ample means of rebutting these offensive 
assaults, feeling a proud sense of innocence, the 
undersigned can no longer withhold from the com- 
munity the means of forming a correct judgment 



upon the matters at issue between him and the ac- 
counting department. It is confidently believed, 
that a careful examination of the documents and 
correspondence will satisfy every impartial mind, 
that the undersigned has discharged liis duty with 
fidelity and zeal ; — that he has anxiously sought 
every opportunity to submit his case, in all its as- 
pects, to the most severe scrutiny of the competent 
authorities ; that he has fully sustained himself in 
all the points which he has assumed, whether of fact 
or principle, by testimony the most unquestionable 
and authority the most undoubted, and that, as well 
in the manner in which he has been assailed, as in 
the treatment he has experienced, he has great and 
u just cause of complaint." Whether or not he has 
correctly apprehended the case, is now submitted 
to the judgment of his country without further 
comment. 

JOSEPH L. KUHN. 



CORRESPONDENCE, $c. 



TREASURY DEPARTMENT, 

4.1k Auditor's Office, 26th January, 1830. 
Sir : 

In the investigation of the accounts of Colonel Wainwright, 
the following facts appear : viz. 

In October, 1821, a remittance of $4,399 72 was made to 
Colonel Wainwright by Captain Grayson, as agent for R. M. 
Desha, then Paymaster, most of which was intended to pay 
off the Macedonian's Guard. 

On the 2dNovember, 1821, Col. Wainwright acknowledged 
the receipt of this money in a letter to Captain Grayson, in 
which he stated that there was a deficiency of the funds in- 
tended for that purpose of $223 72 on one roll, and $46 40 
on another, and for the amount of these, $270 12, and the 
amount of other rolls $772 53, he asked a remittance of 
$1,042 65, which was made by you. 

You subsequently received from Colonel Wainwright 
another Macedonian roll amounting to $389 70. 

The whole amount paid on the rolls of the Macedonian 
Guard was $4,087 90. Of this the amount paid by you and 
credited to Colonel Wainwright, was $668 82, your first 
credit under that name including $772 53 paid on other rolls. 
The amount paid by Desha and credited to Colonel Wain- 
wright, was $2,989 02. Colonel Wainwright is, therefore, 
short credited $4 29 96. 

Although you have actually paid and have credited Colonel 
Wainwright with but $668 82 of these rolls, you have ob- 
tained a credit in this office on that account for $3,657 94, or 
$2,989 12 more than you have paid. On the other hand, 
Desha who advanced $3,419 08 of the money which was ac- 
tually applied to this object, has a credit for only $429 96. 



It seems to follow that you have an over credit for $2,989 12, 
and Dfsha an under credit for the same sum. 

I have therefore to request, that you will in reply state to 
me the grounds on which you have taken this credit, and in so 
doing shew cause why the over credit ; viz. $2?? 89 12, 
should not be re-charged to you on the books of this office. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

AMOS KENDALL. 
Captain Joseph L. Kuhn, Paymaster, 

Marine Corps, Present, 



PAYMASTER'S OFFICE MARINE CORPS, 

Navy Department, 28th January, 1830. 
Sir: 

Your letter of the 26th inst. has been received, and as soon 
as I can have an interview with Mr. John Macdaniel the 
clerk who had the settlement of my accounts in the year 1822, 
a full reply will be given to the matters therein contained. 
I am respectfully, your obedient servant, 

JOS. L. KUHN, P M. M. C. 
Amos Kendall, Esq. 4th Auditor of the Treasury. 



PAYMASTER'S OFFICE MARINE CORPS, 

Navy Department, 30/A January, 1830. 
Sir: 

Since the date of my letter of the 28th inst. I have had an 
interview with Mr John Macdaniel who had the settlement 
of my accounts at the Fourth Auditor's office in the year 1 822, 
and am now prepared to answer your letter of the 26th inst. 

Mr. Macdaniel has a perfect recollection that when my ac- 
counts were under examination, and in which was embraced 
the rolls of the Macedonian's Guard, now the subject of your 
letter, that Captain Grayson the Agent of Desha was sent for 
for the purpose of giving explanations in relation to those rolls, 
and after a full investigation of the matters, it was found that I 
was the proper person entitled to credit for them and that it was 



accordingly given to me. This I apprehend caBnot be doubt- 
ed when the circumstances are known under which this ex- 
amination took place, for had Desha have been entitled to the 
credit, Captain Grayson who was his agent and through whom 
the principal part of the transactions* took place in relation to 
these rolls, would have claimed them for him and would have 
insisted on the credit being given to Desha and not to me as 
Was the case after the investigation. The evidence presented 
at that time to the office showing the justice of my claim to 
the credit for these rolls, and the credit having been given me 
in consequence of such evidence, I must acknowledge that I 
am much at a loss now to account for being called upon to 
show cause why I should not be charged with moneys long 
since accounted for, and settled through the regular forms of 
office. 

I am respectfully, your obedient servant, 

JOS. L. KUHN, P. M. M. C. 
To Amos Kendall, Esq. 

4th Auditor of the Treasury, 



TREASURY DEPARTMENT, 

4th Auditor'' s Office, 20th July, 1830. 
Sir: 

Upon a thorough investigation of your accounts, I have been 
led to a result somewhat different from that announced to you 
in my letter of the 26th January last. The grounds of the 
final opinion now formed, will be seen in my letter to the Se- 
cond Comptroller, a copy of which I enclose to enable you, 
if you think proper, to contest my decision and maintain what 
you may think to be your rights before him. 

Respectfully, your obedient Servant, 

AMOS KENDALL, 
Capt. Jos. L. Kuhn, Paymaster 

Marine Corps, Washington City. 



8 



TREASURY DEPARTMENT, 

4th Auditor's Office, 20th July, 1830. 
Sir : 

In the accompanying account of Joseph L. Kuhn, Paymaster 
of the Marine Corps, you will find re-charged to him the sum 
of $3,657 94, which was passed to his credit in 1822, and 
1823. It is due to the rights of the Paymaster, that a step so 
deeply affecting his interest, should not be taken without a 
clear conviction on the minds of the accounting officers, found- 
ed on a thorough investigation, that the amount has been er- 
roneously passed to his credit. To exhibit the grounds on 
which I have acted and aid you in your inquiries, I deem it 
proper to give a brief detail of facts accompanied by copies of 
the papers by which they are established. 

In the summer of 1821, the Frigate Macedonian, arrived at 
Boston, from a cruise, having on board a guard of Marines, to 
whom a large sum of money was due. They were transferr- 
ed to the command of Captain R D. Wainwright, of the 
Charlestown Station, who applied to the Paymaster for money 
to pay them. 

On the 18tb October, 1821, Captain A. Grayson, acting 
for R. M. Desha, Paymaster, who was then gone to the West- 
ern Country, made a requisition upon the Secretary of the 
Navy, for a remittance of $4,399 72, to Captain Wainwright, 
tc being for pay due the Detachment of Marines under his com] 
mand, transferred from the United States* Ship Macedonian." 
See (1.) 

This sum was remitted and charged to R. M. Desha, on 
the Books of the 4th Auditor. 

On the 2d November, 1821, Captain Wainwright acknow- 
ledged the receipt of this sum and asked a further remittance 
of $270 12»to makeup deficiences upon the Rolls of this 
Guard, and $772 23, to pay a Discharge and Subsistence Roll 
then in his possession, amounting in all to $1,042 65, See (2.) 

In the fall of 1821, R. M. Desha, resigned his office as Pay- 
master. The remittance of $1,042 65, asked for by Wain- 
wright, was never made by him or on his account. 



On the 21st November, 1821, Captain Joseph L. Kuhn 
was appointed Paymaster. 

On the 19th December, 1821, Captain Wainwright wrote 
to him calling his attention to the letter to Captain Grayson, 
dated 2d November. See (3.) 

On the 28th December, 1821, Captain Kuhn, made a requi- 
sition on the Navy Department lor $1,042 65, to be sent to 
Captain Wainwright, "being for Discharge and Subsistence 
Rolls." See (4.) There is no room to doubt, that this remit- 
tance was made in compliance with Captain Wainwright's let- 
ter of 2d November. 

Captain Wainwright acknowledged the receipt of this re- 
mittance on the 5th January, 1822. See (5.) 

On the 4th January, 1822, one day before the first remittance* 
from Captain Kuhn to Captain Wainwright was received , the 
latter wrote to former as follows: 

" I return you the Pay Roll of the Macedonian's late guard 
avouched for $3,169 74, to which you will add the amount 
signed for, on a small Roll, now with you by Page, Rogers, 
Rumford, and Gibson, for $487 96, makingthe whole amount 
paid $3,657 70, and leaving in my hands $569 81, to pay 
Plew, Sylvara. Miller, Watson, and Lord, yet under sentence 
of Court Martial, and withheld from them by the sanction of 
the Commandant." See (6.) 

The Rolls of the Macedonian's Guard mentioned in this, 
letter are sent herewith, and are of the following amounts : 



No. 1, 


in black ink, 


1,627 66 


No. 2, 


ditto and red, 


559 49 


No 3, 


ditto do. 


494 It 


No 4, 


ditto do. 


89 50 


No. 5, 


in black ink — 6 red, 


488 48 


No. 6, 


ditto, 


429 96 


No. 7, 


ditto, 


398 70 

$4, On 7 90 


No. 6, is the Roll of Page, Rogers, Rumford, and Gibson, 


which was before in 
2 


Captain Kuhn's possession. N*. 7, is 



10 



the RollofPlew, Sylvara, Miller, Watson, and Lord, which 
remained to be paid after the date of the above letter. 

Roll No. 6, was passed to the credit of R. M Desha, in the 
settlement of his account, dated 4th r ovember, 1822. 

Roils Nos. t, 2, 3, 4, and 5, were passed to the credit of 
Captain Kuhn in the settlement of his account, dated 22d 
May, 1822. 

Roll No. 7, was passed to his credit in a settlement dated 
May 1st, 1823. 

Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, were paid, as appears by Cap- 
tain Wainwright's letter of 4th January, out of money for- 
warded by G ayson, and charged to Desha on the Books of 
this office, before he had received a dollar from Captain 
Kuhn. All of them ought, therefore, to have been credited 
to Desha, on the Books of this office. 

No. 7, was not paid until after Captain Wainwright had re- 
ceived remittances from Captain Kuhn, but the former stated 
to the latter in his letter of 4th January, that he had on hand 
$569 81, of Desha's money to pay it with. This was enough 
to pay that Roll, and leave a surplus of $171 11. The 
amount of that Roll also, it appears to me, ought to be credit- 
ed to Desha. 

The Rolls numbered 5 and 7, in red ink on the back of No. 
1, are the Discharge and Subsistence Rolls, alluded to in- 
Captain Wainwright's letters of November 2d, 1821, and 
January 4th, 1822, for $772 53, which were paid out of Cap- 
tain Kuhn's first remittance and have been passed to his cre- 
dit. 

I can conceive of but one reason why these credits were 
given to Captain Kuhn. There appeared to be on Desha's 
books, a balance of upwards of $11,000 due to him from 
Captain Wainwright. Had Captain Kuhn been charged with 
this balance, or held responsible for it, then it would have 
been proper to credit him with the amount of these Rolls, 
but so far from being held responsible for it,he was excused from 



u 

stopping it. Not the slightest reason is therefore perceived 
why this credit should have been claimed or given. 

Very Respectfully, your obedient Servant, 
(Signed) AMOS KENDALL. 

J. B. Thornton, Second Comptroller of the Treasury, 

PAYMASTER'S OFFICE, MARINE CORPS, 

Navy Department, 23d July, 1830. 
Sir : I have this moment received a copy of the Fourth 
Auditor's letter to you of the 20th inst. on the subject of cer- 
tain pay rolls passed to my credit in the year 1822. Before 
any action takes place on the matter now presented to you, I 
beg to be permitted to put in such a reply to the Auditor's 
communication as I may deem necessary ; which reply shall 
not be delayed a moment longer than the nature of the busi- 
ness may require. 

I am respectfully, Sir, your obedient servant, 

JOS, L. KUHN, P. M. M. C. 
J. B. Thornton, Esq. 

Second Comptroller of the Treasury. 



PAYMASTER'S OFFICE, MARINE CORPS, 

Navy Department, 26th July, 1830. 

Sir : On the 23d inst. I addressed you on the subject of 
a report made in relation to re-charges in my account by the 
Fourth Auditor of the Treasury, and requested permission to 
put in a reply before you should proceed to act upon that re- 
port. After mature reflection, I have arrived at the conclu- 
sion in my own mind, that it is my duty at this stage of the 
business to enter my solemn protest against the course pursu- 
ed by that officer. 

In January last I received a communication from the Audi- 
tor in relation to the matter now under consideration, calling 
upon me for explanations of certain items in my account, 
which, after a thorough investigation, he had thought not pro- 
perly admitted to my credit. I gave him such explanations 



12 

as the nature of the case appeared to require, and which I 
had reason to believe, from hearing nothing further upon the 
Subject, had proved satisfactory. On the 23d inst. however, 
I received a copy of a report made to you on the subject of 
these accounts, presenting results varying materially from 
those which had been ascertained in January preceding. I 
enclose for your examination copies of his letter and my 
reply. 

In the first place. I apprehend the Auditor has mistaken and 
tra ascended his duty as well as his authority in making the 
changes which he has done. My accounts, embracing the items 
in question, were settled by the proper officers of the Trea- 
sury in 1822. The Auditor, Constant Freeman, passed them, 
—the Comptroller sanctioned them. The present Auditor 
has no authority vested in him by law to revise and re-settle 
the accounts which have already been adjudicated upon by 
his superiors in office, or even by his predecessors. When 
an account has been finally passed upon by the Comptroller, 
it is upon every principle of justice, as well as law, removed 
beyond the control of the Auditor. With at least as much 
propriety may he revise decisions which you may have made 
yesterday, as those which your predecessor made eight years 
ago. The act of Congress gives the Comptroller power to 
revise and pass upon the acts of the Auditor, but where the 
latter can find the authority to subject to his review the pro- 
ceedings of the former, it will not, perhaps, be so easy to 
discover. If the items allowed in my accounts in 1822 are 
to be disallowed in 1830, then we shall have presented the 
singular anomaly of two decisions by equal authority in direct 
hostility to each other Which of them, let me ask, will be 
regarded as legal and obligatory ? The practice of the Gov- 
ernment, since its organization, has been in opposition to the 
principles now acted upon. Indeed, it must be obvious, from 
the very nature of things, that such must be the course which 
musf of necessity be pursued. If every officer of the Trea- 
sury is bound by his duty, or authorized by law, not merely 



13 



to act upon the business which from day to day is brought 
before him, but to re-examine, re-adjust, revise or approve 
of all that his predecessors have done, no. accounts can be 
finally closed, and no business finally adjusted. If the princi- 
ples now for the first time acted upon be adhered to, the 
time must soon arrive when the current business of the De- 
partments must be entirely suspended, for that which is prior 
in time is entitled to be first acted upon, and those transactions 
which have occurred thirty years since will be clearly entitled 
to the precedence. 

I would beg leave further to suggest, that nothing can ex- 
ceed the practical injustice of thus re opening accounts long 
since supposed to be settled, rejecting allowances formerly 
made, and reversing decisions emanating from the proper au- 
thority. It is weli known that all the evidence upon which 
the accounting officers act, is not reduced to writing. Verbal 
explanations are required and given, concurring statements 
are received from interested and indifferent parties, and 
properly weighed; but when the decision is made, this evi- 
dence, fleeting in its nature, disappears, and can never be re- 
covered. It therefore appears to me to be the height of in- 
justice to require of me to re-produce evidence in the matter 
now before you, or to be subject to a re charge for an ac- 
count long since decided by the proper officers to be my due* 
I therefore protest against the course pursued by the Auditor 
in this case, as being unjust in principle, unjust in practice, 
and totally at war with the established usage of the Govern- 
ment. 

I shall take occasion, in a few days, to address you on the 
subject of other claims disallowed by the Auditor, and special- 
ly provided for by a resolution of the two Houses of Con- 
gress, passed at the close of their late session. 
I am respectfully, Sir, 

Your obedient servant, 
(Signed) JOS. L. KUHN, P. M.M. & 

To J. B Thornton, Esq. 

Second Comptroller of the Treasury. 



14 



PAYMASTER'S OFFICE, MARINE CORPS, 

Navy Department, 30th July, 1830. 

Sir : In a communication which I addressed to you on the 
26th inst. I took occasion to say, that in a few days I should 
again write you on the subject of some disallowances made in 
my accounts by the Fourth Auditor of the Treasury, and for 
which special provision had been made by a Resolution of the 
two Houses of Congress. Agreeably to the information thus 
given, I shall now proceed to make such a statement in rela- 
tion to the accounts in question, as is fully justified by the 
facts w the cases referred to, and which I trust will receive 
your deliberate consideration. 

Shortly after the present Auditor entered upon the duties 
of his office, he considered it proper to withhold certain pay 
and allowances made to the officers of the Marine Corps by 
the former Administrations of the Government. His reasons 
for adopting this course you will find fully stated in- a letter 
which he addressed to the Secretary of the Navy on the 28th 
May, 11329, and in which he enters fully into detail as to the 
pay and allowances which the officers were in receipt of prior 
to the 1st April 1829; and also gives his reasons for with- 
holding such parts of the pay and allowances as he considered 
unauthorized by law. This decision, although I believe in 
decided opposition to the opinion of the Attorney General, 
was approved of by higher authority, and the officers were 
compelled to subsist on a small pittance of pay from that time 
till the close of the last session of Congress. Previous, how- 
ever, to the adjournment of that body, the situation in which 
we were placed by the decision of the Auditor was brought 
to the notice of some of the members, who immediately in- 
troduced a resolution, giving to the officers of the Marine 
Corps the same pay, subsistence, emoluments, and allowances 
that they were in the receipt of prior to the 1st April, 1829. 
This resolution was opposed by a distinguished friend of the 
Auditor from Kentucky ; and among other grounds of his op- 
position, the letter of jMr, Kendall to the Secretary of the 



15 



Navy was read to the House, and obtained a conspicuous 
place in the United States Telegraph on the morning of the 
day that the resolution was to be called up for its final read- 
ing. Thus you will perceive that the full amount of pay and 
allowances which the officers received prior to the 1st April, 
1829, was fully made known to the members by the Auditor 
himself, and with this knowledge they passed the Resolution 
by a large majority. In the Senate no opposition was made 
to it ; and after the regular course of legislation upon it, it 
received the signature of the President of the United States, 
and became a law of the land. 

You will perceive by the enclosed copies of vouchers re- 
jected by the Auditor, and marked No, 144, 143, 207,208, 
211,213, 214,215, 219, and 220, that the pay, &c. therein 
claimed, is precisely the same as the Auditor in his report of 
the 28th May, 1829. says I was in the receipt of; but upon 
what ground the credit for them is withheld after the passage 
of the resolution above referred to, I must acknowledge to be 
beyond my capacity to explain. Similar disallowances to 
officers were, however, made by the Auditor, but on present- 
ing their claim to the Acting Comptroller, Mr Reynolds, he 
promptly directed the credits to be given, and the money paid 
to the individuals. Such, 1 am convinced, will also be your 
decision in the cases now under consideration, as they so 
fully come under the provisions of the Resolution, that I 
feel that I owe you an apology for thus long detaining you on 
the subject of them. The two vouchers marked 219 and 
220 will, I apprehend, be fully admitted to be embraced in 
the resolution, as it provides, among other things, for the 
allowances made to the officers of the Marine Corps prior to 
the 1st April, 1829. As the justice and propriety of the 
claims now brought to your notice, in the cases referred to 7 
cannot admit of a doubt, I shall now proceed to state my ob- 
jections to other charges and disallowances of credit made by 
the Auditor in the settlement of my account, on the first of 
May, 1823, and reopened by him in 1830. 



16 



Among other items charged to me. in the reconcilement of 
my account for expenditures in the year 1829, you will find 
the following : 

" To R. M. Desha, late Paymaster of the Marine Corps, 
viz : For this sum improperly debited to said Desha in the 
settlement of Jos. L. Kahn's account, No. 3,961, reported 
1st May, 1823, g7,564 13." 

Here again the question of right or authority on the part 
of the Auditor to re-open accounts long since settled by the 
proper officers arises, and which I so fully objected to in my 
letter to you of the 26th instant. It is not, I presume, ne- 
cessary for me to recapitulate the arguments therein used 
against the practice now adopted for the first time under the 
Government, as I am prepared to believe that you wHl fully 
agree with me that it cannot be sustained by any principle of 
law or justice. The credit given to me for the above sum 
was on the enclosed vouchers, marked No. 332 and 333j 
which have on them the approval of the then Fourth Auditor 
of the Treasury, Constant Freeman ; and to the disallowance 
of them at this time I must solemnly protest against. Ther 
is another item in the reconcilement of my account for ex- 
penditures in 1829, to which I object — it is as follows : 

" For Balances due from Marine Officers, and transferred 
from the books of said Desha to the books of Jos. L* Kuhn, 
his successor in office, for stoppage, more than credited by- 
said Kuhn, g3,455 44." 

Among the items which compose the above sum, is voucher 
No 280, paid by me, as you will perceive, by the authority 
of Smith Thompson, Esq. Secretary of the Navy, and admit- 
ted in the settlement of my account on the 1st May, 1823. 

Another item in the above sum, amounting to $220, is em- 
braced in vouchers No. 163, 165 and 166, and paid by me to 
Captain Thomas A. Linton, and admitted in the settlement of 
my account in 1825. 

To these disallowances I offer the same protest that I make 
in relation to vouchers No. 332 and 333. 



1* 

There are two other items (in addition to an error of $ 100 
in posting up my account with Desha) of disallowance 
which makes up the sum charged in the reconcilement of 

1829, above slated. They are as follows : 

Amount overpaid Lieut. Col. R. D, Wainright, on account 
ofR. M. Desha, $1,093 68 

Commissions on collecting and accounting for 
balances due from officers to R. M. Desha, 1,691 76 

The item of $ 1,093 68 paid by me to Lieut. Col. Wain- 
wright, and disallowed by the Auditor, was charged to that 
officer as soon as it was discovered that the payment had 
been improperly made. His pay was stopped to cover this 
amount, from the 1st July, 1829, till some time in March, 

1830, when I received a note in the hand writing of the Se- 
cretary of the Navy, a copy of which is enclosed, and mark- 
ed A, by which you will perceive that I was authorized to 
stop one-half of the monthly pay of Col. W., to cover the sum 
charged against him. This authority I understood verbally 
from the Secretary, was not to apply to the one-half of the 
pay then in my hands, but to take effect from the 3\st March, 
1830. I consequently paid to Col. Wainwright, on the 8th 
of March last, the sum of eight hundred dollars, and shall 
continue to stop, by the authority of the Secretary, from the 
1st of April, the designated portion of his pay until the amount 
charged against him is accounted for. But for the interposi- 
tion of the Secretary, the full amount charged against Col. W. 
would now be in my hands, and I would willingly have held 
myself accountable for it; but when the amount secured was 
paid over to the individual by the authority of the Head of 
the Department, and the mode of stoppage to cover the 
charge designated by that officer, 1 cannot but think it strange 
that I should now be charged with that sum, and held ac- 
countable for it. When a sufficient amount is stopped from 
the pay of Col. Wainwright to cover the charge against him, I 
Can then have no objection to accounting for it '; but till this 

3 



18 

is the fact, a sense of justice to myself demands that I should 
protest against the charge, at this time, in my accounts. 

In relation to the charge for commissions, I beg leave to 
state, that at the death of my predecessor, R. M Desha, there 
appeared to be large balances due him by the various officers 
of the corps ; and as he was largely indebted to the United 
States, it became a matter of some moment to secure, as far 
as possible, for the Government, as much of those balances 
as practicable. Many modes of effecting that object were 
suggested at the time, to all of which some one or more ob- 
jections were started. It was at length decided that I should 
be desired to collect these balances as far as practicable : 
which duty I undertook and performed with good faith to the 
parties concerned. It will, I apprehend, strike you at once, 
that this duty was extra official, and not within the sphere of 
my office as Paymaster. In the management of this business 
I encountered much labor and perplexity for a space of eight 
years, and have put in the claim in question as compensation 
for it. Indeed, I am advised by the Judge of the Orphan's 
Court in this District, that if such an account was presented 
to that tribunal, that 1\ per centum, or perhaps ten, would 
foe awarded me. 1 have, as you will perceive, claimed the 
lowest per centum which the tribunal established here for the 
settlement of the estates of individuals deceased is authorized 
to allow : but if the matter was submitted to a court of law 9 
I should claim, and should be fully authorized to do so, the 
highest premium allowed in such cases. With this view of 
the case, and when you take into consideration the extent 
ot my labors in performing a duty not properly devolving 
devolving upon me in my character as Paymaster, but wholly 
undertaken at the request of the Government, and from a 
desire to secure it, as far as possible, from a loss, I am in- 
clined to the belief that you will, without hesitation, direct 
the allowance claimed to be made to me. 

1 enclose you the United States Telegraph alluded to in 
the first part of this communication, as also the resolution in 



19 



relation to the pay of the Marine Corps, passed and approved 
on the 29th May, 1830. 

I am, respectfully, your obd't servant, 

JOS. L. KUHN, P. M. AT. C. 
J. B. Thornton, Esq. 

Second Comptroller of the Treasury. 
A 



NAVY DEPARTMENT, March 17, 1830. 
If Captain Kuhn thinks proper to collect the balance due 
him from Col. Wainwright, by a stoppage of one-half his pay 
and subsistence, the Secretary of the Navy will take no ex- 
ception to that course, nor hold him censurable for so doing. 



TREASURY DEPARTMENT, 
2d Comptroller' 1 s Office, August 12th, 1830. 
Amos Kendall, Esq. 4th Auditor. 

Sir : Major Jos. L. Kuhn Paymaster of the U. S. Marine 
Corps whose account for the first quarter of 1830 was repor- 
ted by you to this Office on the 23d ult. for re- examination 
and revision, and who, it appears, was furnished by you with 
a reconciling statement of his accounts as settled in your Of- 
fice, on an appeal from your decision, claims an allowance for 
the following items disallowed by you. 

Voucher No. 144, for the value of 51 cords 5 
feet of wood less received than is claimed by 
the Paymaster for the years 1822, 1823, 
1824, 1825, 1826 and 1827, inch amount- 
ing to the sum of $268 62 
Voucher No. 144, for bills of medicine and 
medical attendance for the Paymaster and his 
family for the years 1822, 1823, 1824, 1825, 
1826, 1827 and 1828 amounting to '432 70 
Voucher 207, being a difference of house rent 
allowed and claimed by the Paymaster for six 
years ending 31 December, 1827, claimed 
$288, allowed $250, difference 232 26 



29 

Voucher 208, for difference of pay, &c. between 
a Major of Infantry allowed and a Major of 
the General Staff claimed, 412 20 

Voucher 211, forage for 4 horses claimed, three 

allowed, difference, 96 00 

Voucher 213, for four extra and undrawn rations 
per day, from 20th November, 1821 to 31st 
December, 1827, being 8,928 at 20 cents per 
ration, 1,785 69 

Voucher 214, forage for an additional horse 
from 20th November, 1820 to 31st December, 
1827, 73 months 1 1 days at $8 per month, 586 93 

Voucher 21 5> for additional pay as Paymaster, 
from 20th November, 1821 to 31st Decem- 
ber, 1827, 73 months, 11 days, at $10 per 
month, 733 6# 

Voucher 219, for five per cent, commission of 
$43,188 35 disbursed by the Paymaster for 
subsistence of marines from 20th November, 
1821, to 31st December, 1823, 2,159 41 

Voucher 220, for a commission of 5 per cent 
claimed on disbursements in the Quarter Mas- 
ter's Department on the sum of $45,030 93 
disbursed by the Paymaster, 2,251 53 

The above recited items and vouchers from the records of 
this Office were contained in Major Kuhn's account reported 
in 1829, and formed the subject matter of an appeal to the 
decision of my predecessor in office Mr. Hill. After a full 
investigation of the facts relating to these charges, and a pa- 
tient hearing of explanations and arguments from Major Kuhn, 
the Comptroller on the 29th of December, 1829, decided 
against their admission. This decision Mr. Kuhn now asks 
me to reverse. However inconsistent this request of Major 
Kuhn's may appear when taken in connection with his argu- 
ment in relation to another part of his appeal, I have; neveis 



21 

theless, felt it my duty to go into an investigation- of this part 
of his case. 

As no facts have been adduced by Major Kuhn in support 
of these claims which were not laid before Mr. Hill in 1849, 
itjs unnecessary that I go into a detailed narration of them, but 
will respectfully refer to Mr. Hill's letter to you dated 26 
December, 1829. 

Major Kuhn now urges the allowance of these claims as 
coming within the purview of a resolution of Congress, passed 
29 May, 1830. The resolution provides that " the pay, sub- 
sistence, emoluments and allowances received by the Officers 
of the Marine Corps, previous to the 1st April, 1829, be and 
the same is hereby directed to be continued to them from that 
date up to the 28 February, 1831." Giving to this resolution 
the broadest construction of which the language will admit, to 
wit. to legalize all irregular allowances &c. received by the 
Officers of the Marine Corps previous to the 1st of April, 
1829, and it will still be found too narrow to embrace these 
claims of Major Kuhn Major Kuhn, so far from having ever 
received such pay, subsistence, emoluments and allowances as 
above charged previous to the 1st of April, 1829, never even 
made a claim for them until the rendition of his accounts of 
expenditures for the year 1828, when they were disallowed 
in your Office, and such disallowance sanctioned by the Comp- 
troller on the 29th of December, 1829. These charges are un- 
authorized by law or regulation as is clearly shewn in the let- 
ter of my predecessor, Mr. Hill. They are not embraced 
within the broadest construction of the resolution of 29 May 
1850. They cannot therefore be allowed upon any principle 
of law or equity. 

The next item of appeal is contained in the official statement 
of Major Kuhn's account for 1829, and is a re-charge to Major 
Kuhn of $1,564 13, in favour ofR. M. Desha, late Paymaster 
of the Marine Corps. Of this recharge it appears Major Kuhn 
was apprized by you, but suffered it to pass to his debit by the 
certificate of the acting Second Comptroller, Mr. Reynolds, 
without objecting. The re-charge is thus made. 



22 

*! To R. M. Desha late Paymaster of the Marine Corps, for 
this sum improperly debited to Desha and credited to J . V. 
Kuhn in the settlement of his account No 3,961, reported 1st 
May, 1823, $7564 13." 

It may be useful to guide in this investigation, here to re- 
mark, that R. M. Desha resigned the Office of Paymaster of 
the Marine Corps in the fall of 1821, leaving balances upon 
his books due him for over-payments made to the Officers of 
the Marine Corps amounting to $60,667 92. On the 21st of 
November, 1821, Captain Joseph L. Kuhn was appointed Pay- 
master of the Marine Corps and these balances transferred 
from the books of Desha to him. These balances were not 
however, charged to the account of Major Kuhn on the books 
of the government until the statement of his accounts in 1829. 

On recurring to the settlement of Major Kuhn's account in 
1823, I find tins sum of $7,664 13 passed to the credit of Cap- 
tain Kuhn upon the following vouchers: 

" United States' Marine Corps 
To Major Samuel Miller, 1820, March 3d. To pay as acting 
Quarter Master of Marines from 1st May to 3d March, 1820, 
inclusive, ten months and three days (agreeably to the order 
of the Secretary of the Navy) at $30 per month, $*303. 
Received Washington, March 3d, 1820 of Lieutenant R. M. 
Desha the above amount in full SAMUEL MILLER. 

Acting Quarter Master Marines. 

United States' Navy Department, 
To Major Samuel Miller, 1820. To allowance for super- 
intending the armory at Head Quarters from 1st May, 1819 to 
30 April, 1820, 12 months at $12 50, $150 

Washington April 30th 1830. 
Received of R. M. Desha the above sum in full. 
(Signed) SAMUEL MILLER, 

Superintendent of the Armory." 

" Received of Vouchers from Major Miller amounting to 
seven thousand and one hundred and eleven dollars and thir- 



23 

teen cents, which vouchers were acquired during my visit to 
the Western Country and which were paid by him. 
Washington 31st July 1 820, 

(Signed) R. M. DESHA, Paymaster Marine Corps. 

Upon what principle Major Kuhn obtained a credit upon 
these vouchers in 1823, I am unable to perceive. To me it 
appears most evident, that as Major Kuhn did not at that time 
stand charged upon the books of the government with the bal- 
ances transferred from Desha's books to him, he was not en- 
titled to the credit. He could avail himself of these vouch- 
ers only as an offset against the balance due from Miller to 
Desha, amounting to $ 12,481 74, transferred from the books 
of Desha to Kuhn. Kuhn not being charged with this balance 
in 1823, the sum of $7,564 13 was erroneously passetl to his 
credit at that time. 

In the settlement of Major Kuhn's account as reported 21st 
May, 1830, he is for the first time charged with the balances 
transferred from the books of Desha to him. In this state- 
ment he is properly credited with the amount of $7,564 13, 
covered by Major Miiler's vouchers as above set forth To 
this credit Kuhn is entitled as an offset against the charge of 
balances. Thus it is evident that Major Kuhn has obtained 
a double credit for this sum on the books of the government 
and that justice and equity require that he should be charged 
with the credit improperly obtained in 1823. — To this re- 
charge, however, Major Kuhn objects, not, if I understand 
the tenor of his remarks, on the ground that such re-charge 
will operate unjustly, but that the credit having passed to 
him, no matter how erroneously, it is not competent for 
the accounting officers to rectify the mistake. He would 
seem, however, to admit the justice of the charge, for 
in his letter to the Secretary of the Navy dated 1st August 
1829, speaking of this item of charge, he says " It must be re- 
collected that I made no charge of this sum, it was admitted 
to my credit in the Office of the Auditor." It would seem 
that at this time he had not determined to contest the charge, 



24 

feut rather to exculpate himself from the impropriety which 
might be attached to him in the mind of the Secretary for 
claiming the credit a second time. Indeed he suffered it to 
pass without objection to his debit by the decision of the act» 
ing Comptroller as late as June 9, 1830, although fully appri- 
zed of the nature of the charge as early as July 27, 1829. 
Being fully convinced of the justice of this charge in your 
statement of Major Kuhn's account, and believing that the ac- 
counting officers have not only the power, but that it is their 
imperative duty to correct gross and palpable mistakes in 
the settlement of the accounts of disbursing officers, I cheer- 
approve your decision therein. 1 have said nothing of Major 
Kuhn's apparent inconsistence, in requesting me in one breath 
to reverse the decision of Messrs. Hill and Reynolds, which 
are against his interest, and in the next objecting to my power 
to reverse the decisions of Messrs. Cutts and Watkins which 
are in his favour. It is sufficient for me that I believe I have 
the power to correct all gross errors in the accounts that pro- 
perly come under my supervision : 

The next item of charge to which Major Kuhn objects is 
contained in the statement of his account reported 21st May 
1830, and is as follows. 

" For balances due from Marine Officers and transferred 
from the books of said Desha, the late Paymaster, to the books 
of J.L. Kuhn his successor in office, for stoppage more than 
credited by said Kuhn, g3,455 44." 

This is the difference between the whole amount of balan- 
ces transferred from the books of Desha and received by Kuhn 
and the amount accounted for by Kuhn on account of those 
balances. It is thus obtained : 

Major Kuhn is charged for these transferred balances as 
per list, by him rendered in the sum of $60,667 93. 

He is credited for balances accounted for as follows : 

Letter of credit dated 23 Sept. 1822, 2,989 02 

ditto, 30 2,500 00 

ditto, 3 Feb. 1823, 22,228 53 

ditto 30 June 1829 1,936 32 



25 

Major R. Smith's acct. credited by direction of 
4th Auditor 

Captain William Anderson, ditto 

Major S. Miller for Vouchers ofd. by him and 
credited by do. 

Lt. J. C. Hall 8301 35, Lt J. Harris $254 73, 

Lt R. T. Auchmuty $64 60, Lt C. Grymes 
$297 44 

Lt. C. Betts $33 35, Lt. T. B. Barton $287 70 

Sergeant Forrest $152 25, Lt, R. Richardson 
$200 16 

Lt. G. R. Walker $9 60, Lt. H. E. Dix $200 

Major R. D. Wainwright 

Colonel A. Gale 

Lt. H. Olcott 

Lt. C. Lord 

Captain A. Grayson 

Lt. S. B. Johnson 

$57,212 48 

This latter sum of balances accounted for by Major Kuhn,, 
deducted from the balances received by him, leaves the un- 
accounted balance of $3,455 44, in his hands. 

Now there is no position more evidently correct than this, 
that Major Kuhn having received the balances due from the 
Officers of the Marine Corps, which were transferred from 
the books of R. M. Desha to him, he should be held to ac- 
count for them to the government, which amount so account- 
ed for, should be passed to the credit of R. M. Desha. To 
this position indeed, I do not understand Major Kuhn to ob- 
ject, but to contend that among the items which compose the 
sum of $3,455 44, is one item of $350 00, embraced in voucher 
280, and admitted to his credit in 1823. One item of $220, 
embraced in vouchers 163, 1#5, and 166, admitted to his 
credit in 1825, making the sum of $570, which should be taken 
from the balance reported by the Auditor. The sum of $350 



3,623 


70 


133 33 


7,564 


13 


556 


08 


362 


04 


320 


65 


352 


41 


209 


60 


11,192 


46 


799 


22 


853 


08 


380 


18 


1.002 


68 


229 


05 



26 



embraced in voucher 280, was- paid by Major Kuhn to Major 
Gamble to correct an overcharge made by Desha in Gamble's 
account, for which, in 1 823, Major Kuhn received a credit, and 
the same was charged to the account of R. M. Desha. Why 
then should Major Kuhn claim a credit for the same payment 
in 1829 ? 

The amount of this payment to Gamble was not taken from 
the balances in /Major Kuhn's hands — the sum of the balances 
amounting to $60,667 92, transferred from Desha's books to 
Sfajor Kuhn was not diminished in consequence of the pay- 
ment of $350 by Kuhn to Gamble. It is a transaction altoge- 
ther independent of and distinct from the subject of these bal- 
ances. For this payment. Major Kuhn admits he received a 
credit in 1823, he is not therefore entitled to a credit for the 
same payment in 1829. 

The two remaining items to which Major Kuhn considers 
himself entitled as comprised in the item of §3,445 44, are 
$1,093 68 overpaid to Lt. Colonel Wainwright, and $1 ,691 76 
commissions for collecting the balances transferred from the 
books of Desha to him. 

The payment of $1,093 68, was made by Kuhn to Wain- 
wright with the full knowledge that Wainwright was indebted 
to the government to a large amount. If we consider the 
payment as an advance by Kuhn to Wainwright it contravenes 
the law of January 31st, 1823, which enacts that no advance of 
Public money shall be made in any case. If we consider the 
payment to be for services, it then contravenes the general 
stoppage enactment which is appended to all acts of appro- 
priation. So that in neither of these views is Major Kuhn 
entitled to the credit. 

But Major Kuhn insists upon a credit for this item, he 
having made the payments by the xlirection of the Secretary 
of the Navy. To this 1 have to reply, that "I am not aware of 
any power vested in the Secretary of the Navy which author- 
izes him to sanction a departure from the plain provisions of a 
positive statute ; nor do I give such a construction to the 



27 



note of the Secretary as set forth by Major Kuhn in his letter 
to the 2d Comptroller. But admitting the construction for 
which Major Kuhn contends, to wit, the sanction of an illegal 
procedure on his part, still he (Kuhn) was not bound to make 
an improper payment to Wainwnght, and having made it, he 
alone is responsible for the consequences, and not the Gov- 
ernment. 

The charge by Major Kuhn of $1,691 76 for commissions 
it appears by the correspondence, was submitted to the Sec- 
retary of the Navy as a contingent charge, for his allowance, 
ft was disallowed by the Secretary and afterwards by yourself 
and my predecessor Mr. Hill. This appears to me to be a 
charge for commissions, not for money paid by Paymaster 
Kuhn, but for money he did not pay. It has been submitted 
to the decision of the Secretary of the Navy as a contingent 
expense, and as I am not inclined to encroach upon the pre- 
rogatives of that office, I shall not attempt to reverse his de- 
cision. 

The remaining item of difference between Major Kuhn's 
own statement of his account and your official statement is the 
recharge of the rolls of payments made to the Marine guard 
of the Macedonian by Captain R. D. Wainwright in 1821, and 
passed to the credit of Major Kuhn in his accounts for 1822 
and 1823. From the documents furnished upon this subject 
it is evident that these payments were made from funds advan- 
ced by Desha, and not from funds advanced by Kuhn. The 
receipts are to Desha and not to Kuhn ; it is matter of surprise 
therefore, that these rolls for payments made by Desha, should 
ever have passed to the credit of Kuhn. But as Major Kuhn 
does not deny the justice of the recharge of the rolls to him, 
but rests his case upon the want of power in the accounting 
Officers to correct the apparent error, it is unnecessary that I 
go into a detailed explanation of the circumstances attending 
the transaction. Having before decided in this letter that it 
is competent for the accounting Officers to rectify palpable 
mistakes in the accounts of disbursing Officers, I have now 



28 



only to add, that I am satisfied from a careful examination of 

the books, papers and vouchers accompanying the account of 

Major Kuhn that your official statement of the same is correct. 

Very respectfully, Sir, your obedient servant, 

[Signed] JAMES B. THORNTON. 



TREASURY DEPARTMENT, 
4lh Auditor** Office, 20lh August, 1830. 
Sir : I have the honour to state, that the accounts of Capt. 
Joseph L. Kuhn, Paymaster of the Marine Corps, embracing 
his expenditures to the 31st March, 1830, have been Audited 
at this Office, and revised by the Second Comptroller of the 
Treasury, and a balance is found to be due from him to the 
United States of $49,563 03 

But from this sum may be deducted the 
amount of Requisitions on the Treasury, issued 
since the 1st of April, 1830, and embraced in this 
balance and which is applicable to his expendi- 
tures for the second quarter of this year - 29,825 76 

g)9,737 27 

And it may be proper also to state that this is made up as 
follows, viz— 

This sum being recharged to him on account of improper 
credits given to him, in settlement made of his accounts in 
1822, and J823, .... $11,22207 

This sum being the balance of his account with 
R. M Desha, late Paymaster of the Marine Corps, 
for balances due from Marine Officers transferred 
to Kuhn, - - - - 3,455 44 

And this sum being errors, disallowances and 
overpayments by Pursers to Marine Officers, 
charged to Paymaster, not yet credited by him, 5,059 76 

$19.7.^7 xl 

I have the honour to be, with great respect, 

Sir, your obedient Servant, 
(Signed) AMOS KENDALL, 

Hon. John Branch, Secretary of the Navy. 



29 



PAYMASTER'S OFFICE, MARINE CORPS, 

Navy Department, 23d August, 1830. 
Sir : 

In a report made to you, on the 20th August, by the 4th 
Auditor of the Treasury, [ am represented as being in arrears 
to the United States, on the 31st March, 1830, in the sum of 
$19,737 27. As this representation of the state of my accounts 
is calculated to inflict upon me, a deep and serious injury in 
the eyes of the Government, I deem it but proper to expose 
to you, the gross injustice done to me by the accountant* Offi- 
cers of the Treasury and to call upon you in your o/fi Ct . "*• 
pacity, as I shall also do upon the President of the C/uited 
States, the moment he returns to the Seat of Government, to 
shield me from the injury which the Second Comptroller and 
4th Auditor of the Treasury intend to inflict upon me. In 
making this appeal to you, it is proper that I should furnish 
for your better understanding of the matters in question, such 
documents and vouchers as are calculated to elucidate the 
case, and to show that the injustice of which I complain is 
not imaginary, but real. 

The first item of disallowance and recharge in my account 
is embraced in part in the vouchers herewith enclosed and 
marked No. 332 and 333, amounting to $7,564 13. These 
vouchers you will perceive, were paid by me on the authority 
of Constant Freeman, 4th Auditor of the Treasury, and ad- 
mitted in the settlement of my accounts for the year 1822. 
These accounts received the strict examination of the ac- 
counting officers of the Treasury, and, with the facts fresh 
in their minds they were passed to my credit ; and the account, 
as I had supposed finally and forever closed This now how- 
ever appears not to be the fact, for the Auditor has taken up- 
on himself to reopen these accounts long since settled, and to 
recharge me with money admitted to my credit by the proper 
officers of the Government. If this practice of the account- 
ing officers be sanctioned in the case of accounts, settled up- 
wards of eight years ago, it would apply with equal propriety,. 



30 



to accounts settled at the commencement of the (government. 
This I apprehend would involve the Government, in difficulties 
not at all desirable, and would even make the Auditor hesi- 
tate unless, indeed, he had some particular object in view. 
But as circumstances alter cases, it may be well lor me to re- 
mark here, that the Auditor appears to have changed his 
miud very suddenly on the power in question, for you will 
find in a publication made by him in the United States Tele- 
graph, in the case of Lt. Randolph, he distinctly denies that 
he rppnened his account, and says, he does not possess the 

* -iw'eT ' < c '^ J s0 * ^ ne ^ nGt P ossess tms power in that 
case, 1 should be glad to know how he became so suddenly 
possessed of it in mine. Indeed I am informed that during 
the last summer the President of the United States gave in- 
structions to the Second Comptroller, not to reopen, or read- 
just accounts settled by a former Administration. If this be a 
fact, and of which I apprehend there can be no doubt, the au- 
thority of the President, appears to have quite as little weight 
with the Auditor, as the uniform practice of all former Ad- 
ministrations have. 

The next item of recharge and which together with the 
sum of $7, 564 13, makes the first amount in the statement 
made by the Auditorto you the 20lh inst. (say $11 ? 222 07,) 
is the sum of 3,657 94, embraced in sundry pay rolls, passed 
to my credit also in 1822. As it is unnecessary after what I 
have said on the practice of reopening and readjusting accounts 
to recapitulate my arguments in the case, I shall confine my- 
self to some facts, connected with the settlements of these 
rolls, which I think will satisfy you of the injustice, of the 
recharge of them in my account, for the first quarter of 1830. 

When my accounts for the year 1822, in which these rolls 
were embraced, were under examination in the 4th Auditor's 
office, a question arose whether or not, I was the proper per- 
son entitled to credit for them To be satisfied on this subject, 
Captain Grayson, the Agent for R. M. Desha, was sent for to 
give the necessary explanations, and after a full examination 



31 



of the mutter, and the evidence being conclusive to the mintl 
of the Auditor, as well as the settling clerk, that I was the 
person entitled to credit for them, the credit was accordingly 
given, and my account closed. These facts can be now ob- 
tained by reference to the clerk who had the settlement of 
the account, as well as to one of the old clerks, now in the 
Auditor's office. But 1 am now required either to reproduce 
the evidence first given, and which is beyond my reach, or to 
submit to a recharge of the sum then placed to my credit. 
This Sir, is an injustice, which would make even an Algerine 
blush. 

In the next sum of recharge embraced in the statement 
made to you, on the 20th inst by the Auditor, viz : $3,455 44, 
is one item of $1,093 68, due from Lieutenant Colonel Wain- 
wright. Of the nature of this charge you are perfectly aware, 
for it cannot have escaped your recollection, that it was by 
your authority in March last, that I paid to Colonel W. the 
sum stopped by me, to cover this amount, and that I was au- 
thorized by you, to stop only one half of that officer's pay from 
the 1st of April, 1830, until the sum charged against him was 
liquidated. These facts were known to the Auditor. But I 
am not only now charged with the original sum against Colo- 
nel Wainwright, but am charged by the Second Comptroller, 
with a violation of the law, by making payments by your au- 
thority. I have ever considered the authority of the Head of 
the Navy Department, as a sufficient justification, for any of 
my acts, but it now seems his authority in the view of the 
Comptroller is worth nothing, and that the disbursing officers 
under his department must subject themselves to the charge of 
a violation of law, if they conform to his wishes or his instruc- 
tions. Indeed, Sir, I believe the officers of the service general- 
ly, look upon the orders or instructions they receive from the 
Head of the Department, as emanating from the President 
himself; but under the Comptroller's view of your powers, 
we shall be all guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, if 
we obey any of your orders touching pecuniary matters. 



32 



The next amount as a part of the $3,455 44, which comes 
under consideration as that of $1,691 76. This is an amount 
charged by me, for the collection of the various moneys, due 
to the estate of R. M. Desha, but disallowed to me by the 
Auditor, and (he Comptroller. In relation to this charge, 
I have only to say that I am advised by the Judge ©f the Or- 
phans' Court, in this City that if such an account as the one 
on which this commission is charged was presented to that 
tribunal that 7\ or perhaps 10 per centum would be allowed 
me, I am at a loss to know by what right the auditor or 
Comptroller has disallowed this charge, for it is not one 
against the United States, but against the estate of R. M. 
Desha, and properly chargeable to the money collected for 
that estate. 

But as the object in view, is to make me appear as a de- 
faulter to the the United States, they perhaps considered it as 
well to swell the apparent defalcation as much as possible, 
and truly they have not stopped at trifles to effect that object. 

The next recharge is $350 embraced in voucher No. 280, 
and paid by me as you will perceive to Major Gamble, by the 
authority of Smith Thompson, Esq. Sectretary ot the Navy. 
As this voucher comes under the reopening system I make 
the same objection to it, that I have made in the other cases 
referred to. 

There is also another item of charge of $220 which when 
added to the three foregoing sums makes the Auditor's charge 
of $3,455 44, and is embrnced in vouchers No. 163, 165, 
and 166. These vouchers were allowed by the 4th Auditor 
of the Treasury, and included in the settlement of my accounts 
for 1825. These accounts have also been reopened, and the 
recharge comes under the same objections as have been 
made in the other cases. 

I now come to the sum of $5,059 76, included in the Aud- 
itor's Report. 

You will perceive that this sum is made a positive charge 
against me in the following words :~- "And this sum being er- 



33 

rors, disallowances and overpayments by Pursers to Marine 
officers, charged to Paymaster, and not yet credited by him.'' 

$6,059 76 

Of this sum there is $2, 196 1 1, in the hands of Josiah Col- 
ston, Purser at Pensacola, for the payment of Marines on that 
station, and $2,106 11, remitted by me to the various Ports 
for public purposes, and for which no return vouchers had 
been received when my account for the quarter ending the 
31stofMarch, 1830, were sent to the Auditor. Yetforlhese 
two sums I am charged and arrayed as a Defaulter. The 
sum in the hands of Colston, was placed there, not by me, 
but by Samuel Hamblelon, Esq. who originally received from 
the Navy agent at Pensacola, three thousand dollars on account 
of Pay ofMarine Corps. When Mr. Hambleton was relieved 
on that station by Colston, he turned over to him the balance 
in his hands of the three thousand, viz. $2,196 11; and on the 
settlement of his account at the Auditor's office, I was charg- 
ed without my authority or consent, with the $3000. When 
Mr. Colston accounts to me for the $2,196 11,1 will then have 
no objection to the charge made against me, but before this is 
the fact, it is folly to suppose that I will hold myself accountable 
for money placed in another man's hands by the Government. 

These two sums of $2, 196 11, and $2,106 11, taken from 
the $5,059 76, charged to me by the Auditor, leaves a balance 
of $767 54, which arises from overpayments by Pursers to 
officers x>f the Marine Corps, and not stopped by me, when 
my accounts to the 31st March, 1830, were rendered. 

If the Auditor had taken the trouble to examine my ac- 
counts rendered to the 30th June, 1830, he would have found 
that the greater part of this $767 54, had been credited by 
me in my account current to that date, and which account cur- 
rent also shows a balance in my favour of $©,101 59. 

But strange and unaccountable as the Auditor's conduct 
must appear in relation to the foregoing cases, it is still more 
strange when you take into view, his course relative to my 
individual pay and allowances. On the 28th of May, 1829, 



8720 


00 


584 


00 


356 


16 


. 288 


00 


168 


00 


384 


00 


82,500 


16 


72 


00 



34 

this officer made a report to you, on the subject of the Pay, &c. 
received by the officers of the Marine Corps. Among the 
other items in that report, he states that the Paymaster, in 
1828, was considered entitled to, and did receive, the following 
pay, subsistence, and emoluments — viz : 

Pay at g60 per month, 

8 Rations per day, 

2 Servants, 

House Rent, 

24 Cords of Wood, at $7.00 

Forage for 4 horses at 88 per month, 

'Which add 12 cords of wood foran officer at 
§6 per cord, 

$2>?£ 16 

These allowances he considered improper and contrary to 
law, and consequently reduced them with that of every offi- 
cer of the Corps, to nearly one half. Under this reduction 
we suffered till the 29th of May, 1830, when the Congress of 
the United States passed a Resolution directing that the offi- 
cers of the Marine Corps, be authorized t© receive the same 
pa^ , subsistence, emoluments and allowances that they were 
in the receipt of prior to the 1st of April, 1829. The benefits 
of this resolution have been applied to every officer in the 
Corps, save myself ; and the Comptroller now says, that I 
never did receive the pay, which the Auditor in his official 
report states I was in the receipt of in 1828. The Second 
Comptroller does not in this assertion appear to be aware 
how seriously he has impeached the veracity of his friend 
the Auditor. He should have curbed his zeal a little to make 
me appear in arrears to the United States, and he then would 
cot have laid himself liable to the charge of ingratitude. 

To the Auditor's report to you, as also to his report on 
Mr Wickliffe's resolution in relation to the Pay of the Navy, 
and Marine Corps, I beg leave to refer you. All I can ask 
for this communication is an attentive perusal of it, and a com- 



35 

parison of the assertiens I make with the documents an4 
vouchers to which I refer. These, I think must convince 
you that the complaints I make are not are not without cause, 
But that they call loudly for redress. 

I am respectfully, your obedient servant, 

JOS. L. KUHN, P. M. M. C. 
The Hon. John Branch, Secretary of the Navy. 



[Vouchers referred to in the foregoing Letter, ~J 
No. 332. 

United States Marine Corps, 
1820. To Major Samuel Miller. 

March 3. To pay as Acting Quarter Master of Marines, from 
1st May, 1815, to 3d March, 18.20, inclusive, ten 
months and three days, (agreeably to orders of 
Secretary of the Navy,) at $30 per month, g303 
Received, Washington, March 3, 1820, of Lieut. R. M. 
Desha, Paymaster of Marines, the above amount in 
full. SAM. MILLER, 

$303 Acting Q M. Marines. 

The above has been carried to the credit of Capt. Grayson, 
Q. M. M. C. in settlement of his account, No. 2322. 
Sth February , 1821. 

Major Miller is allowed pay as Acting Quarter Master of 
the Marine Corps from 1st May, 1819, to 3d March, 1820, 
during the absence of Captain Grayson. If Captain Grayson 
has drawn pay as Quarter Master during that period, let 
him refund it, or be recharged with the amount. 

RICHARD CUTTS. 
Treasury Department, 

Second Comptroller's Office. 
February 20th ? 1822. 



$6 

United States Navy Department, 

To Samuel Miller. 
To allowances for superintending the Armor) at Head Quar- 
ters, from 1st May, 1819, to 30th April, 1820, twelve 
months, at $12 50 $ 150 

Washington, April 30, 1820. Received of R. M. Desha, 
Esq. the above sum in full. SAM. MILLER, 

Sup. of the Armory. 
Carried to the credit of Captain Grayson, in settlement of 

his account, No. 2322. 
8th February, 1821. 

Major Miller is allowed the within amount for superin- 
tending the Armory at the Marine Barracks, from 1st May, 
1819, to 30th April, 1820, during the absence of Captain 
Grayson. RICHARD CUTTS. 

Treasury Department, 2nd Comptroller's Office. 

February 20, 1822. 

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, 

Fourth Auditors Office) 10th Jan. 1823. 
Sir : In the adjustment of the accounts at this office, of the 
late Paymaster, R. M. Desha, there was suspended from his 
credit, two sums paid, amounting to g453, (see copy of 
voucher herewith,) by him to Major Samuel Miller, for pay 
as Acting Quarter Master and superintending the Armory 
during the absence of Captain Grayson, who had charged and 
received a credit for the same in the settlement of his ac- 
counts. This decision has been reversed by the Second 
Comptroller of the Treasury, who directed that Captain 
Grayson should refund the amount of such credit ; and ac- 
cordingly, in a subsequent settlement made with him, he has 
been debited to Mr. Desha for $453. If, therefore, Major 
Miller has been recharged by Mr. Desha for the aforesaid 
payments, he should be again credited. 

I am. 6c CONST. FREEMAN, Auditor. 

Lieut. Jos. L. Kuhn, P M. M. Corps, 

Washington City. 



. 87 

No. 333. 
Received vouchers from Major Miller, amounting to seven 
thousand one hundred and eleven dollars and thirteen cents, 
which vouchers were acquired during my visit to the West- 
tern country, and which were paid by him. 

R. M. DESHA, P. M M. Corps. 
Washington, 3\st Jan. 1820. 

Admitted, Signed C. F. 

No. 280. 
United States Marine Corps, 
1822. To Major John M. Gamble, Dr. 

13th July. To amount overcharged by the late Pay mas lex, as 
per statement of his accounts, $350 

Received, Washington, 19th Dec. 1822, of Joseph L. Kuhn, 
Esq. Paymaster of the U. S. Marine Corps, three hun- 
dred and fifty dollars, in full of the above account. 

J. M. GAMBLE, 

Major Commanding. 

I certify, that on an examination of the books of R. M. 
Desha, late Paymaster of the corps, I find the above charge 
of $350 against Major Gamble, being an amount forwarded 
him for the use of Col. Henderson, and with which the said 
Col. Henderson stands charged. JOS. L. KUHN, 

19th December, 1822. P. M. M. €. 

There can be no doubt but Major Gamble ought to have 
credit for the above sum. Signed S. T. 

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, 
Fourth Auditor's Office, mh Dec. 1822. 
Sir : I return you the account of Major John M Gamble, 
which, having the sanction of the Secretary of the Navy, will 
be pass«d to your credit at this office when paid. 

I am, &c. CONST. FREEMAN, Auditor. 

Lieat. Jos. k. Kvhn, P. M.C. Washington City. 



38 

No. 16S. 
y. S. Marine Corps, 

To Lieut. Thos. A. Linton, Dr. 
To transportation from New Orleans to Philadelphia, as per 
order, herewith enclosed. g 100 00 

Received, Washington, 20th Nov. 1823, of Jos. L. Kuhn, 
Paymaster Marine Corpsi, the sum of one hundred dollars, in 
lull for the above account. 

THOS A.LINTON, 

Lieut. U. S. Marines. 

The above sum was received by Lieut. Linton from Cap- 
tain F. B. De Bellvue, of Marines, for which he gave his re- 
ceipt, which receipt was forwarded to Desha, and the amount 
of it placed to the credit of De Bellvue. Desha has also re- 
ceived credit at the Department for said receipt, but has 
never given Lieut. Linton credit for his transportation. 

JOS. L. KUHN, P. M.M. C. 



No. 165. 
U. S. Marine Corps, 

To Lieut. Thomas A. Linton, Dr. 
To an overcharge on the books of Desha, g20 00 

Received, Washington, 20th Nov. 1823, of Jos. L. Kuhn, 
P. M. M. C. The sum of twenty dollars, in full of the above 
account. tl THOS. A. LINTON, 

Lieut. U. S. Marine Corps. 

On an examination of the books of R. M. Desha, I find Lieut. 
Linton charged with $20 paid Mr. Pool, as per Lt L.'s order, 
drawn on Desha. This order has not been paid by Desha, 
but has been paid by Lieut. Linton on his return to Head 
Quarters, Desha having refused to take it up. The above 
order was presented to me for payment, but was discharged 
hy Lieut. Linton JOS. L KUHN, 

P. M, M. Corps 



39 

No. 166. 
U. S. Marine Corps, 

To Lieut. Thos. A. Linton, &r. 
To an overcharge on the books of R. M. Desha, $100 00 
Received, Washington, 20th Nov. 1823, of Jos. L. Kuhn. 
the sum of one hundred dollars. 

THOS. A. LINTON, 

Lieut U. S. M. Corps. 

The above account is claimed in consequence of a charge 
having been made by Major Miller (acting for Desha,) against 
Lieut Linton, of $400, when only $300 was paid to Lt. L. 
It also appears from the books of Desha, that Lt. L 's draft, 
in favour of Capt. Anderson, was not paid by Desha, but that 
$100 has been charged by Desha to Major Miller as an over- 
charge against Lt. L. which $100 has never been placed to 
the credit of Lt. Linton, and for which purpose the above ac- 
count is now presented. JOS. L. KUHN, 

P. M. M. Corps. 

If Lieut. Desha charged Lieut. Linton with 400 dollars in 
April, 1819, as paid by me, and has not paid Captain Ander- 
son's draft for $100, drawn on that account, it appears to me 
that Lieut. Linton should be credited for 100 dollars, as 300 
only was paid to him by me. The 100 dollars overcharged 
in the first instance, has been charged to my private account. 
(Signed) SAM. MILLER. 

April 22, 1822. 

PAYMASTER'S OFFICE, MARINE CORPS, 

Navy Department, August 25, 1830. 

Sir : I have received a copy of your report on the various 
items of claim made by me on the Government of the United 
States, as well as your decision on items of disallowance made 
in my accounts by the 4th Auditor of the Treasury. If in 
reviewing this report, I shall be led into any strong and forci- 



4a 

ble language of criticism upon it, you can east no censure en 
me for such a course, but must attribute it solely t© the very 
loose manner in which it is drawn up, and to the false and un- 
tenable positions which you have assumed for your justification 
in the decision you have made. In the remarks which I pro- 
pose to make, it is my purpose to stick to facts and not to in- 
dulge in assertions which are not borne out by the documents 
to which I shall refer. With these preliminary remarks, I 
shall now proceed to take up all your errors in the order in 
which they stand in the document now before me, and which, 
I presume, is the first of any consequence you have been 
called upon to concoct in your new, but highly important sta- 
tion. 

The first error appears in that part of your report, in which 
you say " The above recited items and vouchers [meaning 
the pay, subsistence, emoluments, and allowances which by 
the 4th Auditor's own showing, I was in receipt of prior to the 
1st of April 1829] it appears from the records of this office 
were contained in Major Kuhn's account reported in 1829, 
and formed the subject matter of an appeal to the decision of 
my predecessor in office, Mr. Hill. After a full investigation 
of the facts relating to these charges and a patient hearing of 
explanations and arguments from Major Kuhn.the Comptroll- 
er on the 2§th December, 1829, decided against their admis- 
sion." 

(t As no facts have been adduced by Major Kuhn in support 
of these claims which were not laid before Mr. Hill in 1829, 
it is unnecessary that I go into a detailed narrative of them, 
hut will respectfully refer to Mr. Hill's letter to you dated 
26th December, 1829." 

-In reply to this part of your report, I must beg leave to 
state, that a fast has been adduced in relation to these claims, 
and which I think a very strong one too, which was not pre- 
sented to Mr. Hill in 1829 ; I allude to the Resolution passed 
by Congress on the 29th May, 1830, but which you think is 
feund " too narrow" to embrace my claim, but which has ex« 



41 

'ended in its operations, to every Officer of the Corps but 
myself. The mere exclusion of my claims since the passage 
of the Resolution of the 29th May, must be conclusive to every 
unprejudiced mind that there must be some object in view in 
withholding from me what the Auditor reports I was in the re- 
ceipt of prior to the 1st April, 1 829. This report was the guide 
for Congress in their action upon the Resolution, for as I be- 
fore stated, that for the purpose of preventing its passage, the 
report was read to the House the day before their final action 
was had on the Resolution, and received aconspciuous place 
in the United States Telegraph on the day it was to receive 
the final consideration of that body. Each and every member 
knew distinctly what I received prior to the appointment of 
Mr. Kendal to his present office, and with this knowledge 
they passed the Resolution by a large majority, and I am con- 
vinced there is not an individual among them that will not ex- 
press the same astonishment that all others have, at the with- 
holding of its operations in my case alone. 

You are also in error when you say that the Comptroller 
decided against the admission of these claims on the 29th of 
December, 1829. The vouchers 219 and 220 were not rejected 
by Mr. Hill in his report, but were merely suspended, and as 
you have decided to leave them where you found them, I can- 
not but express my astonishment that the Auditor should take 
upon himself to disallow jvhaf you and your immediate prede- 
cessor have merely suspended [see the reconciling statement 
of my account to 31st March, 1880.] 

You say again " Major Kuhn so far from having ever re- 
ceived such pay, subsistence, emoluments, and allowances as 
above charged previous to the 1st of April, 1829, never even 
made a claim of them until the rendition of his account of expen- 
ditures for the year 1828." As you profess to have examin- 
ed very minutely into the matters under discussion, but 
which I fear you have not, if you would have traced the ori- 
gin and nature of these claims, you would have found that the 
most important part of them were presented to the Government 
6 



42 



in 1827, and not withheld until the " rendition" ot my accounts 
for expenditures for 1828. 

If my accounts were not settled in the Auditor's office, the 
the fault was not mine, for they were regularly rendered for 
settlement either quarterly or half yearly. But you say that 
I never received the pay, subsistence, emoluments and allow- 
ances claimed. To this 1 beg leave to remark, that the claims 
were made by me and embraced in my accounts for the years 
1827 and 1828. These accounts were not finally acted upon 
till the early part of 1829, when the claims in question re- 
ceived the sanction of the proper officers of the Government, 
as will appear by the endorsements on the back of the vouch- 
ers. They were however rejected by the arbitrary will of 
those who succeeded them in the Government ; but how far 
this rejection is lawful and right, will perhaps be determined 
at some future day. I contend that the acts of one administra- 
tion, or of one officer of the government, legally appointed, 
cannot be reversed by their successors The nation is bound 
by such acts, be they right, or be they wrong. The persons 
succeeding to office, may adopt such rules as they may think 
proper for their own government, but they cannot annul the 
acts of their predecessors. But, Sir, in making the assertion 
that I never received such «* pay, subsistence, emoluments and 
allowances" you perhaps are not aware that you are making 
a very serious charge against your friend the 4th Auditor, for 
in his report to the Secretary of the Navy dated 28th May 
1829, he says, that I did receive such pay, &c. 1 think you 
will also find in his elaborate report on Mr. WicklifTe's resolu- 
tion that he not only reiterates the assertion as regards the 
pay, &c, but makes his comments on the allowances made to 
me for the commissions charged in vouchers No, 219 and 220. 
But as I am not disposed to disturb the harmony existing be- 
tween you and your friend, it will be better perhaps to say no- 
thing more of your unkindness towards him in this instance. 

The next error in your report is in the following sentences. 

" The next item of appeal is contained in the official state- 
ment ot Major Kuhn's account for 1829, and is a re-charge to 



43 



Major Kuhn of $7,564 13, in favor of R. M. Desha, late Pay- 
master of the Marine Corps, of this re charge it appears Ma- 
jor Kuhn was apprized by you, but suffered it to pass to his 
debit by the certificate of the acting second Comptroller, Mr. 
. Reynolds, without objecting." 

In reply to this statement I have to say that I was not appri- 
zed by the Auditor oj the re-charge of this sum in my account 
until four days after the account was returned to his office by 
the acting Comptroller as being revised. My accounts were 
sent to the Comptroller's office and revised and returned to 
the Auditor on the 8th June 1830. On the 12th of June I 
received for the first time a reconciling statement of my ac- 
count, in which I discovered, that this among other charges, 
had been made against me by the 4th Auditor. I immediately 
called upon the acting Comptroller and Mr. Seaver the clerk 
who had the revisal of the account, and stated the fact of the 
discovery to them, and informed them, that I protesteJ against 
the charges, and that I should file a formal objection to them, 
when the next quarter's account came under consideration, 
and which was then in the course of preparation to be sub- 
mitted. 

I regret to say, Sir, that I have too much cause to doubt 
that you gave to this subject any part of your attention, for if 
you had, I can hardly believe that you would have made asser- 
tions not founded in fact. This and the foregoing errors are 
not however, the only instances in which I have cause to com- 
plain of your want**** attention to this subject ; other and 
perhaps more glaring facts will be developed in the course of 
this communication, tending to show that my doubts are cor- 
rect. 

But there is one piece of disingenousness displayed by you 
in that part of your communication in which you profess to 
give copies of the vouchers which have as you think, been 
properly disallowed. If in giving these copies, you had made 
them correspond with the originals, 1 should have had no 
cause to complain ; but when you have been so particular as 



$ 






41 



to take from them the endorsement of Constant Freeman and 
Smith Thompson, with their instructions for the payment of 
them, it is a difficult matter for me to believe that there was 
not something more than error connected with the transaction. 

What, let me ask has the Government to do with the ac- 
counts between R M. Desha and myself? Has any account 
been rendered by me as an account between me and the Uni- 
ted States for the moneys collected for Desha's estate ? The 
account between Desha and myself [marked No. 4 and filed 
with my accounts in the 4th Auditor's office] I hold to be a 
private concern between his estate and myself. 1 never have 
admitted it to be a public account, and therefore the public 
have no control over it. 

In that account I have given him credit for the balances 
transferred to me, and have charged him with such offsets as 
I deemed just and equitable. Among the credits given are the 
amounts which I have from time to time authorized the 4th 
Auditor of the Treasury to place to the credit of Desha and to 
my debit on the books of his office. My last letter of credit 
was for $ 1,926 32 the balances which 1 considered to be due 
to Desha, which balance closed the account between him and 
myself, and I do not hold myself responsible to the Govern- 
ment for any amount for which I have not given authority to 
them to charge me with. The late as also the present Attor- 
ney General have decided that Desha's books are " private." 
[I respectfully refer you to their decisions on file in the office 
of the Secretary of the Navy or the 4tfhW\uditor.] Hence I 
will thank you to point me to the law authorizing the account- 
ing officers of the government to disallow a part of the charges 
in my private account, or to disallow a part of my public ac- 
count and to credit it to an individual with whom I have a pri- 
vate account, without my consent. 

But as I before observed the account between Desha and 
myself is settled, as you will find by a reference to a statement 
of it filed and referred to above. 

But in referring to the vouchers paid by me in 1822, and 



45 

1823, on the authority of the Secretary of the Navy and Con- 
stant Freeman the 4th Auditor of the Treasury, you say 
" upon what principle Major Kuhn obtained a credit upon 
these vouchers in 1823, I am unable to perceive. To me it 
appears most evident, that as Major Kuhn did not at that time 
stand charged upon the books of the Government with the bal- 
ances transferred from Desha's books to him. he was not enti- 
tled to the credit." 

Here, Sir, we have another proof that you did not examine, 
as you profess to have done, into the state of this account. 
What, let me ask you, was my letter of credit given to Desha 
for on the 30th of September 1822, amounting to §2,500 ? 
what also, let me ask you were my letters of credit given to y - 
him for on the 23 September 1822, and the 3d of Febfuary,'* *'£^ 
1823, the first for §2,989 02 and the second for §22,218 53 ? 
Did not these sums become a charge against me on the books 
of the Government ? In this I presume you will say that you 
were also mistaken — So let it pass. 

You also, however, say that in my letter to the Secretary 
of the Navy on the 1st August 1829, that I seem to admit the 
justice of the charge of the §7,564 13, as I say that I made 
no charge of it, but that it was admitted to my credit in the 
office of the Auditor. If you had examined my letter to the 
Secretary, you would have found that I had reference in the 
remark which you have quoted, not to an account between the 
government and myself, but to the account current between 
me and Desha, which account was made out in the Auditor's 
office by his directions, and in which he gave me credit for 
this sum. It was to prove this fact, that the remark was 
made by me in that letter, and not to admit that I was not enti- 
tled to credit for it, for this I have always claimed as my cor- 
respondence will fully show. 

If you will examine the Auditor's report to the Secretary 
of the Navy, you will find that he distinctly says, that I am en- 
titled to this credit in my account with Desha, and which you 
confirm in your report of the 1 3th inst. If you will also refer 
to the remarks made by the clerk in dissecting my account fop J. 

>>%^ » > vV\ • i 



5* 



4 (J 



1822, you will find that he says that 1 am charged with this 
sum, and am of course, entitled to a corresponding credit for it. 

I must quote you again. 

" I have said nothing of Major Kuhn's apparent inconsis- 
tency in requesting me in one breath to reverse the decisions 
of Messrs. Hill and Reynolds which are against his interest, 
and in the next objecting to my power to revise the decisions 
of Messrs. Cutts and Watkins, which are in his favour. It is 
sufficient for me that I believe I have the power to correct all 
gross errors in the accounts that properly come under my su- 
pervision." 

I have in this quotation from your report, for the first time 
perhaps, some evidence of a Comptroller of the Treasury 
' laud i ng himself and the dignity of his office for some effect 
other than that for which the office was created. In the 
the name of common sense, tell me if you can, what T. 
Watkins had to do with the accounts passed in the Auditor's 
office in 1822 and 1823 ? If you had not ripened into man- 
hood at that time, it is to be presumed you have subsequently 
made yourself acquainted with the prominent occurrences of 
a national character, which were interesting to the country. 
Assuming this to be the fact, you must have known that T. 
Watkins during the years 1822 and 1823 was Secretary of the 
Board of Commissioners under the treaty of Ghent, [Spain] and 
therefore he could have had no agency or control over the ac- 
counts in question. You cannot plead ignorance to the fact, 
that he had no agency in the passing and adjusting of these ac- 
counts, for you had before you the vouchers on which the 
credits were allowed, and to which there was attached the 
signature of Constant Freeman, 4th Auditor of the Treasury. 
Is this honourable ? Is it proper for a gentleman filling an 
office oi so much dignity as the one you occupy, to descend 
to such tricks as these ? Sir, the nation will blush if these 
facts should be made known to them. 

But for the first part of this quotation. — 

Sir, I have demanded that the decision of Mr. Hill be re- 




47 



versed, because a subsequent act of Congress has made pro- 
v hi oji for the allozvance of the very claims he rejected. I have 
objected to the charges which were admitted by Mr. Rey- 
nolds, because I. never was informed that the charges were 
made against me, until he had acted on the account. I have 
objected, and do now most solemnly object to your power to 
reopen and disallow items in an account decided and acted 
upon by Richard Cults and Constant Freeman in 1822 and 
182 3. But as you consider yourself possessed of this power, 
and have lugged T. Watkins into your report without reason 
or without cause, I will copy for your edification, Mr. Hill's 
testimony on the trial of that personage before the Circuit 
Court of this District. It is as follows : 

August 4th 1829. 

" I am second Comptroller of the Treasury. The ac- 
counts of Mr. Harris and Paulding have been settled as far as 
relates to the drafts of Dr. Watkins, referred to in the cases 
now before this Court. Credit has been given them in the 
Comptroller's office for the amount. I was absent at the time 
and Mr. Reynolds was the acting Comptroller. One account 
I think was settled on or about the 5th June, and the others 
were not far distant from that period. The items are finally 
and irrevocably settled." 

Now, Sir, without intending to express an opinion myself 
on the subject of the credits to Harris and Paulding, yet I can- 
not refrain from saying, that I have heard the opinion of the 
most experienced clerks, and officers of the Government ex- 
pressed in direct opposition to Mr. Hill and Mr. Reynolds. 
It has been contended that these credits have been improper- 
ly given, and that the officer who gave the credits, is proper- 
ly chargeable with the amount ? but, as I before said, on this 
point I shall express no opinion, it is sufficient for me that Mr. 
Hill says " The items are finally and irrevocably settled ," and I 
presume none of his successors in office will charge him with 
the amount, and as regards yourself particularly, he may rest 
perfectly safe on that score. 



48 

If then, Sir, the accounts of Harris and Paulding are " fi- 
lially and irrevocably settled," where do you find your au- 
thority to recharge me, with the amounts settled and passed 
to my credit, in 1822 ? It strikes me your friend Mr. Isaac 
Hill has placed you in rather an awkward dilemma by his 
testimony before a Court of Law. 

Now, Sir, as to the item of $1,093 68. 

You are here so directly at issue with the Secretary of the 
Navy, in relation to his powers, that I shall leave you to set- 
tle this matter with him. Having obeyed his instructions, and 
commenced the stoppage of the half pay of Wainwright to 
cover this sum, from the 1st of April last, I shall give myself 
no trouble about it, but advise you to wait patiently for it, for 
you may depend on it, not one dollar of it will be paid by me, 
except as the stoppages are made quarterly. 

I do not admit your right to reject the item of $1,691 76 
for commissions. This I feel fully competent to settle with 
the representatives of Desha. You have discovered so fixed 
a determination to settle these matters in your own way, and 
without permitting me to have any thing to say to them, save 
as a matter of form, that you have left me no other alterna- 
tive than to tell you frankly, that you have nothing to do with 
them. There is one remark in your report in relation 
to this matter, which however requires a passing notice — 
it is where you say that the commission charged is " not 
for money paid by Paymaster Kuhn, but for moneys he 
did not pay." To this I have only to reply that, your asser- 
tion is not founded in fact. The commissions charged are only 
on such sums as proved effective and were realized to the es- 
tate of Desha. So much for another round assertion of yours. 
If you will look at my letters of credit in favour of Desha, 
you will find what these commissions were charged for. 

Now, Sir, for the rolls of the Macedonian's Guard. 

You say " from the documents furnished upon this subject, 
it is evident that the payments were made from funds advanc- 
ed by Desha, and not from funds advanced by Kuhn. The 



49 

receipts are to Desha, and not to Kuhn ; it is a matter of sur^ 
prise therefore that these rolls for payments, made by Desha ? 
should ever have passed to the credit of Kuhn. But as Ma- 
jor Kuhn does not deny the justice of the recharge of the 
rolls to him, but rests his case upon the want of power in the 
accounting officers to correct the apparent error, it is unne- 
cessary that I go into a detailed explanation of the circum- 
stances attending the transactions." In your very first posi- 
tion you are wrong in asserting that the payments were made 
by funds advanced by Desha. The funds were remitted by 
Captain Grayson for a portion of these rolls, and not by Desha, 
and for which I accounted to Grayson when the rolls were 
turned over to me. As a proof of this fact when these rolls 
were under examination in the 4th Auditor's Office in my ac- 
counts for 1822, the settling clerk sent for Captain Grayson, 
for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not, I was the 
proper person entitled to credit for them. After obtaining 
from him the necessary evidence of that fact, which was not 
only satisfactory to him, but also to the Auditor, the rolls 
were passed to my credit, and my account closed. But you 
say the receipts are in the name of Desha, and not in my name, 
and express surprise how the rolls should ever have pas- 
sed to my credit. At this- 1 am not at all astonished, for if 
an officer entrusted with the examination of disputed ac- 
counts, takes a view of only one side of the question, he 
will not only be *« surprised," but will be very apt to be 
led into very gross error. I could have required no other 
evidence that you did not examine this case, than is given 
by this assertion. The receipts on the rolls are not in the name 
of Desha. There are two or three small discharge and trans? 
fer rolls which are headed as being received from Desha, 
hut the Macedonian's pay rolls are not so receipted. If you 
had made any enquiry into this matter, you would have 
been informed, that it is the practice for the sutler at many 
of tKe* p$ i Bta to commence a discharge roll, sometimes six or, 
nine months, before it is forwarded to the Paymaster ; and en 



yy^^&z^ 



50 

which he takes up from time to time, such men as are dis- 
charged, and pays them out of his own funds for the purpose 
of securing his advances to them. When this roll is forwarded 
to the Paymaster, he remits the amount to be repaid to the in- 
dividual who made the advances on the roll. Does it not ap- 
pear to you that this was the case in relation to these discharge 
rolls, and that although commenced in the name of Desha, 
that they were not paid by him, as they were not forwarded 
until sometime after my appointment as his successor in office ? 
If you would go back and examine all my accounts for 1822 
and 1823, you would no doubt find large sums passed to my 
credit, in the very manner, you are noiv so much surprised 
at. Indeed if you would examine my accounts settled in 
1824, you would find that I have received credit for a large 
sum on rolls receipted in the name of the Navy Agent at New- 
Orleans : and as one objection would be quite as good as the 
other, you could direct me to be re-charged with the whole 
amount so credited, and thus be enabled to make me out a 
defaulter in a round, handsome and imposing sum. 

But you say I do not deny the justice of the recharge of 
these rolls. This adds to my belief that you did not examine 
the case ; for if you had, you woukLnot have made such a state- 
ment. For what purpose, may I be permited to ask, did I en- 
close you the correspondence between the Auditor and my- 
self, bearing date in January last, if it was not for the express 
purpose of showing my objections to the recharge ? If my 
letter to that officer, dated on the 30th of that month, does 
not contain my objections to the recharge, I must confess I 
do not understand the language in which I now address you. 

I beg you to refer to the Auditor's letter to me dated the 
26th January, 1830, and you will there find whether I made 
any remittances on the rolls in question or not. 

If, Sir, you had read my letter of the 30th of January, and 
have had any disposition to arrive at a proper understanding 
of this matter, you would have seen the propriety of sending 
for the clerk, who settled the account in which these rolls 



r>\ 



were embraced, and have got his testimony in relation to them. 
He is the only individual, save myself, now in existence, who 
has any knowledge of the transaction, and as he, as a matter of 
course, had no interest in the case, his evidence it strike? me 
should have been deemed as all important. But perhaps, it 
was not desirable to have it, as it would have altered the cha- 
racter of your report on this point very materially, as well as 
the Auditor's statement on this item in my account. 

I have thus, I believe, followed you through your report. 
It has been as painful to me, as it no doubt will be mortifying 
to you, to have been compelled to expose the inaccuracies 
which that document contains. It now remains for you, either 
to correct its errors, or to let it remain as a monument of your 
fame, as an accounting officer of the Treasury. 

I would, however, recommend to you, that when another 
account is submitted for your examination, that you critically 
investigate it yourself, and not to be too hasty to " cheerfully 
approve" the decisions of the Fourth Auditor. 
I am respectfully, 

Your obedient servant, 
JOS. L. KUHN, P. M. M. C. 
.To J. B. Thornton, Esq. 

Second Comptroller of the Treasury. 



PAYMASTER'S OFFICE, MARINE CORPS, 

Navy Department, 27th Sept 1830. 
To the President of the United States : 

Sir : It is with great reluctance that I feel it incumbent 
upon me to trouble you again with concerns in which, as an 
individual, I feel so deeply interested. You were apprised 
about twelve months since, of the differences which subsist- 
ed between the Fourth Auditor of the Treasury and myself, 
in reference to my accounts as Paymaster of the Marine 
Corps. In the further prosecution of this business, I have 
again cause of complaint in acts of gross injustice and oppres- 
sion, inasmuch a9 some of the proceedings of the Audita* 



5£ 

and Second Comptroller appear to me to involve a collision 
with directions which 1 have understood had been given by 
you, as well as others emanating from the Head of the Navy 
Department, much to my prejudice. In making my appeal 
to you, 1 take the liberty to enclose, for your better under- 
standing of the matters in question, such part of the corres- 
pondence between the officers of the Government and myself, 
as is calculated fully to elucidate the points on which I am 
at issue with the accounting officers of the Treasury, and 
trust that I may indulge the hope that you will give them a 
part of your attention, and" cause the numerous errors which 
fcave been committed to be rectified. 

The document enclosed, and marked No 1, is the report 
of the Fourth Auditor of the Treasury to the Secretary of 
the Navy on the state of my accounts. The one marked No. 
2, is a copy of my letter to the Secretary in reply to that 
report. The one marked No. 3, is the report of the Second 
Comptroller on particular items in my account, and that mark- 
ed No. 4, is my reply to it. I also enclose copies of all the 
vouchers referred to in my letter to the Secretary of the 
Navj'. I have the honour to be, very respectfully, 
Your obedient servant, 

JOS. L. KUHN, P. M.M.C. 



The letter of Captain Kuhn of the Marine Corps, dated 
September 27th, 1830, calling the attention of the President 
to the decision of the Second Comptroller upon his appeal 
from that of the Fourth Auditor, has had all the consideration 
the President could bestow upon it. He has reviewed the 
documents and vouchers rendered in the case, has read the 
several statements of the Fourth Auditor and Captain Kuhn, 
and the document referred to, with the report of the Second 
Comptroller thereon, and sincerely regrets the spirit and in- 
decorous language used by Captain Kuhn ; and still more, 
that he should deny in his statement, some facts admitted in 
October, 1829, when this subject was under discussion be- 



53 



fore the President, between Captain Kuhn, the Secretary of 
the Navy, and Fourth Auditor. Captain Kuhn does not 
appear to complain of the injustice of the charges, but more 
particularly of the want of power in the accounting officers 
to transfer credits when entered by a previous officer, how- 
ever palpably unjust. Surely Captain Kuhn cannot be serious 
in this complaint of injustice. So long as accounts remain 
open and are presented for settlement, it is the imperious 
duty of the accounting officer to examine and correct the 
whole, and pass all credits to those to whom they justly be- 
long, before they are finally closed. Captain Kuhn would 
have had reason to complain if his accounts had been finally 
closed under the late and former Administrations, and if the 
Fourth Auditor had, of his own accord, taken them up, or 
reopened them for investigation. This is not the case. 
Captain Kuhn's accounts remained open and unsettled, and 
were presented for settlement ; credits due to others, and 
once admitted by him to be so, were transferred to those to 
whom they were due ; and in other cases palpable errors 
were corrected by the accounting officer, as it was his duty to 
do before he finally closed the account, and could strike a just 
balance : and surely Captain Kuhn would not have a credit 
passed to his account justly due to another, because it had 
been erroneously applied to his. 

Upon a full consideration of this case, the decision of the 
Second Comptroller is approved. 

October 7, 1830. ANDREW JACKSON. 



8th October, 1830. 
Sir : I am directed by the President of the United States 
to inform you that your appointment as Paymaster of the 
Marine Corps is this day revoked. 

You will transfer all accounts, papers, &c belonging to 
your office, to Captain Charles R. Broom, and will then re« 
port yourself to Col. Henderson for duty, 

I am, respectfully, &c. JOHN BRANCH, 

Capt. Jos. L. Kufijf, U, & Marines, Washington, 



54 



Washington, l\th October, 1830. 
To the President of the United States : 

Sir: I have received the communication with which I 
have been honoured by the President, bearing date the 7th 
inst. and cannot but regret that any thing should have been 
perceived in the language employed by me which merited 
the rebuke which the President has thought proper to bestow. 
In every communication which I have addressed to the Exe- 
cutive, the respect which I have ever felt it my duty to evince 
towards the First Magistrate of my country, as well as a regard 
to my own character, would forbid the use of language to 
which the epithet of "indecorous" could be applied. If, 
therefore, any such has escaped me, I beg the President to 
believe that it has been wholly undesigned, and it would afford 
me much pleasure if the President would indicate the offen- 
sive expressions, in order that I may explain or apologize for 
them, in the manner which my feelings would dictate. If, 
however, the objectionable language is that which has been 
employed in relation to the officers of the Treasury who have 
had my accounts in their hands for settlement, I cannot but 
hope that the President will concur with me in the opinion, 
which a careful revision of the documents has confirmed, that 
in no one instance have I transgressed the bounds prescribed 
by a proper sense of decorum and self-respect. 

Upon one other point I would respectfully solicit of the 
President a further explanation of his views. The President 
expresses his " sincere regret," that " Captain Kuhn should 
deny, in his statement, some facts admitted in October, 1829, 
when this subject was under discussion before the President, 
between Captain Kuhn, the Secretary of the Navy, and the 
Fourth Auditor." 

It will be recollected, that on the occasion referred to, I 
read from a written paper all that fell from me which affect- 
ed the business under consideration. A reference to that 
paper, since the receipt of the President's communication, 
has not enabled me to conjecture to what the President has 



55 



allusion, as it is not in my power to perceive the slightest in- 
congruity or inconsistency between my statements. I cannot 
therefore but indulge the hope that the President has, in the 
circumstances to which he refers, entirely misapprehended 
my language, and that this misapprehension alone has drawn 
down upon me his displeasure. 

In another particular, I feel assured that my language, or 
at least my meaning, has been misunderstood. It was cer- 
tainly my intention to " complain" of the 4 ' injustice of the 
charges" to which I excepted, and not ** to the want of power 
in the accounting officers to transfer credits when entered by 
a previous officer, however palpably unjust." The charges 
made by the Fourth Auditor appeared to me " palpably un- 
just," and this idea I had hoped was distinctly expressed. It 
is my misfortune if my language has not been sufficiently 
explicit. In addition to this objection, I urged, under the 
sanction of the uniform practice of the Department in all 
other cases, the solemn opinion given upon oath by the pre- 
ceding Second Comptroller, and your own positive instruc- 
tions, the illegality, as well as the oppression of the conduct 
of the accounting officers when " my accounts had been final- 
ly closed under the late and former Administrations," that 
" the Fourth Auditor had, of his own accord, taken them up 
and re-opened them for investigation." It affords me sincere 
pleasure to perceive that the President concurs with me in 
the opinion, that if my views of the facts are correct, this 
procedure does afford "reason to complain." That I had 
not misapprehended these facts, a reference to the report of 
the Fourth Auditor, of which I complain, showing that some 
of these items had passed in the settlement of my accounts in 
1822 and 1823, and the positive testimony of Mr. Hill, to 
which I took the liberty of referring, that such a settlement, 
under the practice of the Treasury, and the law of the land, 
was a u final and irrevocable" settlement, left me no ground to 
doubt. 

Although it has been my misfortune to incur the displeasure 
of the President, so unequivocally indicated, as well by his 



66 



communication as by my removal from the honourable and 
responsible situation which I have so long, and 1 trust, so 
faithfully occupied ; I entertain the hope, that as import- 
ant relations still subsist between me and the Government, 
they will be thought sufficient to justify me in anxiously seek- 
ing an opportunity to relieve myself from the censure which 
it would afford me infinite pain to believe that my own mis- 
conduct had justly incurred. 

I have the honour to be, very respectfully, 

Your obedient servant, 

JOS. L. KUHN. 



It will be perceived by the President's letter, that he ex- 
presses his sincere regret " that Captain Kuhn should deny, 
in his statement, some facts admitted in October, 1829, when 
this subject was under discussion before the President, be- 
tween Captain Kuhn, the Secretary of the Navy, and the 
Fourth Auditor." 

As this is a charge of serious import, it becomes Captain 
Kuhn to submit, with the foregoing documents, the paper 
which he read " when this subject was under discussion be« 
fore the President, between Captain Kuhn, the Secretary of 
the Navy, and the Fourth Auditor." The interview alluded 
to by the President took place on the 19th of October, 1829. 
On the 12th November following, Captain Kuhn transmitted 
to the Secretary of the Navy a copy of this paper, with a re- 
quest that it might become a matter of record in his office. 
As Captain Kuhn is unable to determine to what part of this 
paper the President has allusion in the remark he has made, 
he deems it but proper to present it to the public without 
comment, with the other documents. 



Having received a copy of the Fourth Auditor's letter, 
dated the 27th August, 1829, late on Saturday evening, the 
17th October, and, by the President's desire, having to ap- 
pear before him on Monday morning, the 19th, at 9 o'clock, 



0/ , 



I bad only time to draw up the following paper, in answer to 
that letter, which must account for any error in style, or for 
the neglect to answer any points which have been brought 
forward in that communication. By this I do not pretend to 
admit that any points worthy of notice have escaped me, but 
simply to say that I have replied to the general tenor of that 
letter in as full a manner as the time allowed me would ad- 
rait of. The following, therefore, is what I read to the Pre- 
sident of the United States in the presence of the Secretary 
of the Navy and the Fourth Auditor of the Treasury. 

Monday Morning, 19th October, 1829. 
Sir : In all cases where Desha's books were sent for by 
me as a matter of reference, it was to ascertain whether or 
not certain vouchers had been credited to the different 
officers, and not to see whether the balances against them 
were correct. After the year 1822, or the early part of 
J 823, I had seldom or ever cause to refer to these books, and 
consequently had not my attention drawn to the credits given 
upon them. The credits claimed by Grayson 1 presumed to 
be correct, as he had been acting as Paymaster a considerable 
time before my appointment, aud I never knew, until recent- 
ly, that the moneys drawn by him for public purposes, had 
been charged to Desha, and not to himself. I knew that he 
had made a settlement of an account as Acting Paymaster, but 
what the nature of it was I did not know, nor do I to this 
moment. I would, as a matter of course, be governed by any 
instructions from him in relation to these balances ; and I can 
but again repeat, that the alterations made in them on my 
books were, first, to meet what would be the amount of them, 
deducting what he, Grayson, claimed ; and, secondly, to res- 
tore them to their original amount, at his own request. The 
fact that he declined reporting the balance due from himself, 
in the list furnished by him to the Department, and the Au- 
ditor finding his account sealed up in the books of Desha, 
would, I apprehend, be conclusive evidence to the minds of 
all honourable men, that if any impropriety had been commit' 

8 



58 

ted, it was at least not attributable to me. These facts, in 
the Auditor's zeal to criminate me, are of but little import- 
ance ; but however regardless he maybe of the character 
and feelings of honourable men, he may yet be taught that 
there is a point beyond which he cannot go with impunity. 

At the time the Auditor's letter of the 27th July, was re- 
ceived, I was confined to my house by indisposition, and did 
not get to my office for ten or twelve days after its date. 
Feeling muck anxiety on the subject, I wrote to my clerk to 
send me all the letters from the Fourth Auditor in my office, 
which had reference in any manner to the balances on De- 
sha's books. The letter which the Auditor refers to, and 
in which. he says I was informed that the original list furnish- 
ed by me was lost, could not, after the most particular search, 
be found. The conclusion must therefore be, that no such 
letter was ever sent to me, for had it been so sent, it would 
have been found on file with the rest in my office. This con- 
clusion is strengthened by the fact, that the letter communi- 
cating to me this information is said to have been dated the 
21st of January, 1826, and the list which he says it required, 
was sent on the 29th of March of the same year. Had such 
a letter been sent to me, is it probable that the Department 
would have remained quiet without an answer, or is it not 
more than probable that they would have sent me a duplicate 
of that letter, and required an answer to it without delay? 
Yet no such original or duplicate can be found, and I think it 
must be conclusive to the minds of all honourable men, devoid 
of prejudice, that no such letter was sent, or, as I said before, 
an answer would have been required to it without delay. 

Was it not reasonable, Sir, for me to believe, that Grayson 
was justly entitled to the balances he claimed, wjien I knew 
he had been acting as Paymaster, and had made considerable 
payments to the officers as such ? When the settlement of 
these balances first commenced with the. present Auditor, 
and I was informed that the moneys drawn by Grayson 
as Acting Paymaster, had been charged to Desha, and not 
b himself, as I had supposed, I could, of course, have no 



59 

objection to a settlement of the original balance ; as under 
these circumstances there could be nothing due to Grayson, 
or to his estate, on account of them This, in addition to 
finding he had given me credit at the Auditor's office for dif- 
ferent sums which I had paid him on account of these ba- 
lances, was my inducement for starting no objection to a settle- 
ment of the original balances when it was proposed. The 
Auditor, in his letter of the 27th August, says, that he was 
informed by his clerks that the credits given on Desha's books 
were in the hand- writing of Grayson, but of this he had his 
doubts. This degrading insinuation, as well as many others 
contained in that letter, / cast back upon their author as alone 
worthy of the sourcefrorn whence they emanated. 

This gentleman's memory is a very convenient one. He 
has a perfect recollection of matters and things which he 
hopes will have a tendency to criminate me, but he denies 
that he himself informed me that he was convinced that the 
credits given on Desha's books had been made by Grayson. 
He also denies that I called his attention to these balances, 
and expressed a desire that they should be settled. But with 
all his want of recollection, I again assert that I was the first 
to bring these accounts to his notice, and to desire a settlement 
of them without delay. This I now assert to you, Sir, and 
call upon him to deny it if he can. 

I am, however, indebted to the gentleman for one piece of 
information contained in his letter from Kentucky to the Se- 
cretary of the Navy, viz. That he had been repeatedly spoken 
to by Col. Henderson and Captain Freeman about these ba- 
lances. It is proper you should know the causes which ac- 
tuate both of these gentlemen in their dislike to me. 

It became necessary, about three years ago, for me to 
prefer charges against Col. Henderson for conduct " unbe- 
coming an officer and a gentleman." On these charges a 
Court of Inquiry was ordered, and after a full investigation of 
the matters, the Court found the charges fully sustained by the 
evidence. The specifications to these charges were for lying. 
The Government, however, for reasons which I could never 



60 



understand, restored him to duty, with a slight reprimand ; or, 
as the Colonel very classically expressed it, " by receiving 
thirty nine and let off?' The proceedings of this Court are 
now on file in the Navy Department, and to which I beg leave 
to refer you for the verity of what I say. 

The other gentleman, Captain Freeman, is an applicant for 
my office, as the Secretary of the Navy knows ; and if the 
representations of the Auditor be correct, would willingly ob- 
tain it« regardless of the means, however degrading to his char- 
acter. But to return to the state of the accounts in question. 

The list of 1826, which is the great bug bear with the Au- 
ditor, amounts to $46,182 87. The amount which he admits 
I am entitled to credit for, after deducting the $7,564 13, the 
commissions and the letter of credit in favor of Desha, dated 
30th June, 1829, as also the sums disallowed as being paid by 
me to Gamble and Linton is $48,815 69, showing, that if I 
had settled by that list, that 1 had actually overpaid Desha 
$2,632 82. This is too ridiculous to require comment. 

The list of 1827, furnished to Col. Henderson, amounts to 
$48,587 22. li the amount which the Auditor says I am en- 
titled to credit for, after making all his deductions, is placed 
in opposition to this sum, it will then be found that by this 
list, I had overpaid Desha, $228 47. Can it for a moment 
be supposed by any reasonable man, that I would render two 
such lists with a view to defraud the Government, when the 
fact itself shows that I should have defrauded myself if I had 
consented to a settlement by either of them ? Comment is 
again unnecessary. 

The fact is, that these accounts were so complicated, and 
so blended with the various settlements made both by Desha 
and myself at the Auditor's office . that, as 1 have said before, 
an adjustment of them, other than in that office, was impossi- 
ble. Such, too, was the state of the accounts, that it was im- 
practicable for me to settle them ; nor do I believe there were 
more than two clerks in the Auditor's office who were com- 
petent to the task, and I so informed him when the account 
was about to be taken up. 



61 

On the subject of the $7,564 13, which the Auditor says I 
am not entitled to credit for, I would ask him if I am not charg- 
ed with the whole amount of the balance due from Col. Mil- 
ler to Desha, and whether I have not given Col. Miller credit 
on my books for this sum for which he held the receipt of 
Desha for vouchers turned over to him ? I would also ask 
him if Desha (which is the fact) has got credit for these identi- 
cal vouchers at his office, is he again entitled to credit for this 
sum; and if not, who is entitled to such credit? Desha hav- 
ing received credit for it once, is certainly not entitled to a 
second credit ; and if I am not entitled to the credit, it strikes 
me it will be a difficult matter for him to say who is entitled 
to it. If I am properly chargeable with it, I am prepared to 
account for it ; but before I admit it, I must be satisfied with 
the correctness of such a charge. 

In my communication to the Secretary of the Navy, I say 
I never made a charge of this sum. This I aver is the fact, 
notwithstanding the Auditor thinks he has a document, in my 
own hand writing, in which the charge is made. That docu- 
ment I made out when I was informed by the settling clerk 
that I was entitled to credit for it, and was laid on the clerk's 
table, not as a public document, for it has no such character, 
but to show what would be the state of the account if this 
credit was given to me* How the Auditor got it, he best 
knows, 

But admit that I had made the charge. Had I not good and 
ample cause to do so ? As a proof of this I beg to read the 
Auditor's letter to me dated 7th July, 1 829. In this letter you 
will observe no mention is made of this sum as forming an objec- 
tionable item in my account, and I repeat again, that every 
credit given to me in the account current drawn up in the 
Auditor's office, and a copy of which I sent him, was fully 
and minutely examined into and conclusively determined that 
I was entitled to them ; and it so remained till the receipt of 
his letter of the 27th July, when I was for the first time given 
to understand the change which had taken place in his opinion 
as to this and other credits. For this change I was at a loss to 



62 



account until yesterday, when I saw by his letter to the Sec- 
retary of the Navy from Kentucky in which he gives the 
names of two gentlemen who were so urgent in drawing his 
attention to these balances, both of whom were actuated by 
motives too obvious to be mistaken. If however I am proper- 
ly chargeable with this sum. I again repeat that I am prepared 
to account for it. 

In the letter which the Auditor did me the honour to address 
me on Saturday, after offering any papers or documents in his 
office necessary in the investigation of this affair, he says " for 
if I know myself I would not in any manner be instrumental 
in inflicting upon you any injustice." 

How far this declaration corresponds with his letter of the 
27th July, as well as that of the 27th August, I leave to your: 
excellency to judge. The friendship of the Auditor I never 
courted and I do not think I ever shall. His enmity I had no 
cause to expect ; yet, with his mind poisoned by others, and 
believing me all that they represented me to be, he without 
further enquiry makes up his opinions to my prejudice and 
draws his inferences accordingly. If he had gone further and 
collected the opinions of the officers of my own Corps as well 
as of the Army and Navy, added to the respectable citizens of 
this District, he would have perhaps hesitated, and not in- 
dulged aspersions which he has given vent to on my character. 

Whether I am indebted to the Auditor as he says, for the 
honour of presenting myself before you at this time, or whether 
it is owing to my letter of the 16th inst. which I took the liber- 
ty to address you, your excellency will be best able to de- 
termine. Having, I believe, replied to all the objections 
which have been started to these accounts, it only remains 
for me to say in addition to what I have heretofore stated, 
that I have no knowledge whatever of the alterations and ere? 
dits made in the books of my predecessor as they were not 
finally in my possession until the early part of 1823. I also 
beg leave to call your attention to my letter of explanations 



63 



addressed to the Hon. Mr Branch, which I trust will fully 
elucidate the matters in question. 



After the interview at which the foregoing paper was read, 
Captain Kuhn heard nothing further from the 4th Auditor, 
until the 26th January, 1830, when he received the letter 
which will he found at the beginning of this correspondence, 
and which will show, the new ground taken by him. 

In conclusion, Captain Kuhn considers it proper to submit 
the following correspondence between the 4th Auditor and 
himself, after his appointment as Paymaster to the Marine 
Corps was revoked. It will be perceived that the Auditor, 
in his letter of the 1 2th of October, admits that Captain Kuhn's 
accounts for 1822 and 1823, were "settled" and in which 
were embraced the credits for the vouchers which he has re- 
charged to him in 1830. This admission, in addition to the 
testimony of Mr. Hill, in which he says, that items so admit- 
ted "are finally and irrevocably settled," will, Captain Kuhn 
trusts, fully show, that " the 4th Auditor had of his own ac- 
cord taken them up and re-opened them for investigation. 5) 
Captain Kuhn therefore cannot but again s'ay, that it afford? 
him great pleasure to find that the President fully concurs 
with him in opinion, that he has just "reason to complain." 

It may also be proper for Captain Kuhn to state (as a proof 
that the accounts settled in 1822 and 1823, were not adjusted 
without a proper investigation,) that, the original reports on 
the accounts of which the following are copies, were drawn 
up by Constant Freeman, then 4th Auditor, and now appear 
in his hand writing, on the files of the office. It may be 
proper further to state, that the apparent balances in these 
reports against Captain Kuhn, arise from the circumstance 
that he was charged with the various sums drawn by him for 
public purposes, between the time of the rendition of his ac- 
counts, and the settlement of them, in the Auditor's Office. 
This explanation is unnecessary to those who are conversant 
with the mode ©f adjusting the accounts of public agents in 



64 

the different departments, at the Seat of Government, and is 
only made to prevent a misunderstanding of the case by those 
who have never had business to transact at the public offices. 



Washington, 9th October, 1830. 

Sir : I have to request that I may be furnished with all 
the original vouchers embraced in the settlements of my ac- 
counts in 1822 and 1823, and which have been re-charged to 
me by you in the settlement of my accounts for the quarter 
ending31st March, 1830. I have also to requestyouto fur- 
nish me with a copy of the report of the 4th Auditor on the 
accounts in which these vouchers were embraced, as also 
with the decision of the 2d Comptroller upon them. 

I am respectfully your obedient servant, 

JOS L. KUHN. 

To Amos Kendall, Esq,. 4th Auditor of the Treasury. 



TREASURY DEPARTMENT, 

4th Auditors office, 9th October, 1830. 
- Sm : I have received your letter of this date, requesting 
to be furnished with all the original vouchers, embraced in 
your accounts in 1822 and 1823, and which have been re- 
charged to you by me, in the settlement of your accounts for 
the quarter ending the 31st March, 1830 — also with a copy 
of the report of the 4th Auditor on the accounts, in which 
those vouchers were embraced, and a copy of the decision of 
the 2d Comptroller upon them. 

Copies of the Auditor's report, and the decision of the 
Comptroller, shall be furnished— ^as also, if required, copies 
of the original vouchers embraced in the settlement of your 
accounts for 1822 and 1823 — but, as not only the re-charge to 
you, but likewise the credit to your predecessor, Robert M. 
Desha, is founded on those vouchers, they must remain on 
file with the settlement in which such credit and re-charge 
have been made. I am, Sir, respectfully, your obedient ser- 
vant, AMOS KENDALL. 
Joseph L. KuHtf, Esq.. late Paymaster of Marines ^ 

Washingto 



66 

Washington, 11 th October, 1830. 
Sir :• Your letter of the 9th inst. has been received, inwhich 
your decline giving me the original vouchers, called for by 
my letter of the same date. Copies of these vouchers I do 
not desire, but have now to repeat my request that 1 may be 
furnished with official copies of the reports of the 4th Audi- 
tor and Second Comptroller, in 1822 and 1823, on the ac- 
counts in which those vouchers were embraced. 

I am, respectfully, your obd't Servt. 
JOS.L. KUHN. 
To Amos Kendall, Esq. 4th Auditor of the Treasury, 
Note — Captain Kuhn received official copies of the above 
vouchers on a former occasion. 



TREASURY DEPARTMENT, 

4th Auditor's Office, 12th October, 1830. 
Sir : In Gompliance with the request contained in your letter 
of the 11th inst. I send to you, herewith, copies of the re- 
ports of the 4th Auditor and Second Comptroller, made on 
your accounts settled in 1822 and 1823. 

I am Sir, Respect'y, your obdt. Servt. 
AMOS KENDALL. 
Captain Joseph L. Kuhn, U. S. M. C. Washington. 

JVo. 3238. 40 

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, 

4th Auditors Office, 22 May, 1822. 
I certify, that 1 have examined and adjusted the 
account of Joseph L. Kuhn, Paymaster, Marina 
Corps, and find that there is due from him to the 
United States, on a settlement made this day ? 
of his expenditures from the 20th November, 
15,390 T ff, 1821, to the 9th March, 1822, a balance of fif- 
teen thousand three hundred and ninety dollars, 
and eighty-two cents. 




66 



He is debited with amount charged against him on the 
books of this office, - - 76,956 25 

The amount brought to his debit 
in this settlement, • - 1,484 18 

78,440 43 

He has credit for his expenditures, from 20th 
November, 1821, to 9 March, 1822, - 63,049 61 

Appropriation , pay Marine Corps. — 15,390 82 
There is due from Mr. Kuhn, 
under Pay, 18,969 27 

Due to him under 
Quartermaster's stores, __ 3,578 45 
Balance, 15,390 82 

As appears from the statement and vouchers herewith 
transmitted for the decision of the Second Comptroller of the 
Treasury thereon. 

(Signed) CONSTANT FREEMAN, Auditor. 

To Richard Cutts, Esq. 

Second Comptroller of the Treasury. 

Second Comptroller's Office. 
I admit and certify the above balance, this 1 1th day of July s 
1822. 

(Signed) RICHARD CUTTS, 

Second Comptroller, 



JVo. 3961. 716. 

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, 

4th Auditors Office, 1st May, 1823. 
I certify, that I have examined and adjusted 
the account of Joseph L. Kuhn, paymaster of 
the Marine Corps, and find that there is due 
from him to the United States, on a settlement 
made this day of his payments to the 31st of Jan« 
18,563, T J£ uary, 1823, a balance of eighteen thousand, five 
hundred and sixty-three dollars, and seventy- 
five cents 



67 



Balance due from him on the 22d May, 1822. Report 
No. 3238, - . - 15,390 82 

Entered to his debit on the books, 146,409 81 

Brought to his debit this settle- 
ment, - - - 31,745 69 

193,546 82 

Entered to his credit on the books, 10,814 70 

Expenditures brought to his credit 
on this settlement, - - 164,167 87 

174,982 57 



Due the U. States under Pay, 43,745 14 > |ft - fi ,,. 
Due Mr. Kuhn, Qr. Mas.M. C. 25,181 39 J 18,00J 7 * 

As appears from the statement and vouchers herewith 
transmitted for the decision of the Second Comptroller of the 
Treasury thereon. 

(Signed) CONSTANT FREEMAN, Auditor. 

To Richard Cutts, Esq. 

Second Comptroller of the Treasury. 

Second Comptroller's Ofeice. 
I admit und certify the above balance, this 20th day of 
June, 1823. 

(Signed) RICHARD CUTTS, 

Second Comptroller, 



^ C7 ^ 
^CC«C 
CXCc 

C<<r 

CtGC 



CCCC 
CTCC C 

dccc: 
-ice 

ICC 
CCCC 

cccc: 



<cc <c 



*r <jl «c 



c:ac - 



«1'CC « 

ccc 

<rccc: 

cccc: 

■CTCC*"" 

crcc - 

CCCC 

- cccc « _ 
«ccc<c 
<r c c «^ 

C cc i _ 
Ca C 

c cc C 
cccc 



C- 

:c- 

i c 

■ eg « 

- ; C C 
-c-c 

/<cc ; 

•©C c 

.. o *- 

^ c * 

?<> «C<3/:c; 

fc<3 C 

I cr <ci 
ca «5C C 

cccr 

cCC C 
• cfe ^ 

^£ 

( C-<C ^ 



CC 



c: 



Cl CC 

c; c 
c c 

l «"CjC CC 

C : CC : 
■CCCCv 

•'■ etc 



CC 

re ctcac 

tc «crc 



c<r<c 



cr cc c* 



ISC 


cc 


cc 


cc 


CC 


"C « 


C< 


cc: 


c 


cc •■< 


c 


cC « 


c 


CCC 




CC '- 




cc 


cc 


c 




c 


rr« 



c C 

ccCC 

c cc: 

c <:c 

cCC 



c <c c: 



cC ~ 

ccc 

CCtC 

c c C 



cc 

CCCC 

cc 

Cc 

<.CiC 

cccc - 

ccccc 

cc 
CC(C' : £$ 



c,CC 

ccc 
ccc 



■.ex 
:CC 
;■: <J~c 

< CC C 

c cc 

•?<rccc 

'CC:^jC 



CC 



CCS ^IcCC 



<cOC 
ccc:<£ 



£c.c 



>T *T CC * CJ ^- 



c^< 






r^c€ 



^ 



cc 



ex 






C&Cc < 



C C 






c ..< 
3c c<c «: «_- 
- «^ «< c<c <c c 

*■ csunt c«c oco 

^ 43^-dCoC <fcj< 

C c 'C c: <r „ 

5^ 3ga£*« c«c<c: c 



¥ ^C^CCCCC C 
r c CCC CCCCC C^ 

£" CCCC ccCCC C 

^ c ccc occc c; c 

- 2 sxccc ccc c 
~ Ssc cc cc<c ^ 

33E&<3CrCJl^ 
c CT? ■= 

Cccd 
^c< c . 



:i «K"r'C 


*^^&s* 


cc 


ccc 


CI__ 


^ C 


_c «r^ rtvr-i 


B!^C 


Ccc 

^cc < 


w- — 7- 


:>Strai 




c — 


ccc 


<^m 


^*« — : 


C-Cc « 
<SC<C 

CcC 


*- 


*ccc 


d<<5 


c 

c 

C* 


c 




-•' CC c 


C^CIjctcc 


<£ 


CC* • 




■"«T<cc 


^st 


cc 

CP < 


s= 


S-*8iCK 


cicc 


4C 


cc 




^5Cc 


«c c c 


"'^CT 


eg c 


= , 


^ <K 


«c ccc 


^•cr 


- CC 




-<cc 


*cn ct c 


"^CI 


cc 




£L<CC 


■c: ccx 


■I'd 


c c 




^~ccc 


c <xx 


'"^fZ 


. cc 




&<pC 


C c < 


C^C 


: cc 




C ccc 


c ccc 


"""" 


C C 


' < 


llccc c 


1«C 


CC 


<y <; 


: <ccoc 


cc CI 




CC 


c c< 


cc «t 


ec 


' *C 


5%c 


<:< 


; cc c 


: ccc: 


^C 


cc 


•< <r« 


:pcc tr 


ccc: 


_!^d 


CC ■ 


cc 


C C < 


CC < 




: cc 


<r* 


z:«zt c 


-glc 




cc 


CC 


Cccc o 


p cc 


~" 


c C< 


. <c 


cc c 


cc c 


Ic 


Q C 


cc 


cr c 


CCC 




' (C 


<r<r; 


■ cCC CC 


ccc 


I 


oc" -•' 


. ^c 


C cc cv 


cc< 


DC 


(C 


c 


." " c? 


<^<c ^ 


■ C 


c c CCc 



-, c cr 

, cc 



I c c: \ 

^ cc 
>cc* 

xc <- 
_ cc 

IL CLC 

:x c 
ccc_ 

cccc 

^icc<: 

TCC 
dec _ 

d:cc<: 

cccc 

<r<c^: 

cccc 

CCCCT: 
C^lC 

CCC CI 

exeez: 

. -<TC<r< 



ccsc 

d«ac 
OC C 



Z«CL C <C2< 

zee 
z<cc: c 
c«: c: 

C«CC o_ 

ccc c^o 

ccc <ZM 
c:cc <5,c^c 
cccc: 
c<c <r 

Ccc - 
C:c * 
Ccc C«ac< 

CCCCCC 



CCC 

CCd 

ccc 

ccc 

<3:c2 

C2SC «C 

xc 

. ^C 



c<;c;c 

Ccc- 

CTXCi 






■c<fec: 
cc 

cCC 



c c 



<c 



c:;c 

tlcC 

^*ric 

c: ' 



^c_C^d 

<^ccr«C 



..: c< 



it 



: < 


• CCCC ^ 


^^LJ''d 


C 


^Z 


•Cccc <M 


Pi 


c 


^^^ 


C^rc ^ 


a -.«:_. 


c 


4tt£^Z 


^Cccc c S 


c: .^c: 


c 


rfgr 


ode c 4C 


Z; ccr 


c 



